140 Conn. App. 219
Conn. App. Ct.2013Background
- Moran seeks foreclosure on a judgment lien against 399 Main Street, Portland, CT, claiming priority via a notice of constructive trust.
- Chase Home Finance, LLC holds a mortgage recorded August 22, 2003; Moran had a prejudgment attachment and a $63,061 judgment against Momeau recorded in 2004–2006.
- Moran argues the attachment and Moran’s judgment lien relate back to the July 2003 notice of constructive trust to obtain first priority over Chase.
- Chase was defaulted for failure to appear; the trial court converted to foreclosure by sale and later determined priorities before sale.
- The court ultimately held that Moran’s notice of constructive trust did not create a valid lien or relate back to an earlier filing; Chase’s default did not fix Moran’s priority.
- The appeal concerns whether default can immunize a mistaken legal conclusion about lien priorities.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Chase’s default conclusively establish Moran’s priority? | Moran contends default confirms the complaint’s priority claim. | Chase argues default does not fix priority, which requires a separate assessment. | No; default does not determine priority. |
| Can Moran’s judgment lien relate back to the notice of constructive trust to establish priority over Chase? | The lien relates back to the 2003 notice, via attachment and judgment lien dates. | No valid relation back to the constructive trust; relation back limited to attachment date. | No; relation back only to May 28, 2004; not to the 2003 notice. |
| Does strict construction of attachment provisions limit Moran's proposed relation back and priority? | Strict construction would still support priority via relation back to attachment. | Attachment statutes cannot be expanded to alter priority beyond statutory four-month window. | Yes; statutory limits control and prevent expanded relation back. |
Key Cases Cited
- Whitaker v. Taylor, 99 Conn. App. 719 (2007) (default may not automatically yield relief; sufficiency of pleading controls)
- Commissioner of Social Services v. Smith, 265 Conn. 723 (2003) (pleading sufficiency and standard for relief in default situations)
- Mountview Plaza Associates, Inc. v. World Wide Pet Supply, Inc., 76 Conn. App. 627 (2003) (sufficiency test for pleading; piercing corporate veil discussion nearby)
- Farmers & Mechanics Savings Bank v. Garofalo, 219 Conn. 810 (1991) (strict construction of attachment and relation back in prejudgment remedies)
- Mac's Car City, Inc. v. DiLoreto, 238 Conn. 172 (1996) (four-month filing period for judgment lien relation back; prevention of expansion)
- Tang v. Bou-Fakhreddine, 75 Conn. App. 334 (2003) (pleading sufficiency in determining valid claims on face of complaint)
- Argentinis v. Fortuna, 134 Conn. App. 538 (2012) (appellate review of allegations to ascertain valid claim for relief post-default)