192 Conn.App. 405
Conn. App. Ct.2019Background:
- Seminole Realty sued Sergey Sekretaev to foreclose a mortgage after his default; the trial court entered a judgment of strict foreclosure in 2014 which this court affirmed.
- Sekretaev filed multiple bankruptcy petitions during the foreclosure proceedings (at least five); bankruptcy courts and the district court found a pattern of serial filings to invoke automatic stays.
- The bankruptcy court granted Seminole in rem relief from automatic stays for two years, but on July 10, 2018 suspended that relief for 60 days to allow Sekretaev to attempt confirmation of a Chapter 13 plan; the suspension was vacated and in rem relief reinstated on September 18, 2018.
- On June 1, 2018 the state court, by agreement of the parties, opened the 2014 strict foreclosure judgment, set redemption at $55,000, and fixed a law day of August 15, 2018.
- Sekretaev failed to redeem by the extended period; the trial court overruled his objection to the plaintiff’s execution of ejectment and denied his emergency stay, finding he had agreed to the law day and title had passed.
- The appellate court held that the bankruptcy court’s 60-day suspension extended the law day by 60 days (to October 15, 2018), title vested on October 16, 2018, and affirmed the ejectment order; other challenges were dismissed as moot.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether title vested so ejectment was proper | Law day expired and plaintiff obtained absolute title; ejectment appropriate | Bankruptcy stay prevented vesting; title did not pass | Title vested Oct 16, 2018 after 60-day extension expired; ejectment proper |
| Effect of bankruptcy filing/suspension on law day | §108(b) governs and at most extends redemption period 60 days; suspension extended law day 60 days | §362(a) automatic stay indefinitely suspends running of law day | Court applied Provident/In re Canney: §108(b) limits extension to 60 days; automatic stay does not indefinitely stop law day |
| Whether defendant agreed to August 15, 2018 law day | Parties orally agreed in open court to value, redemption amount and law day | Defendant later denied voluntary agreement | Trial court’s credibility finding supported by transcript; agreement binding |
| Validity of collateral attacks (TILA, mortgage defects, Rule 60) | Prior adjudication and vesting render those claims moot; plaintiff prevails | Defendant contended mortgage was void and foreclosure improper | Claims are moot because title vested; appellate court lacked jurisdiction to decide them |
Key Cases Cited
- Provident Bank v. Lewitt, 84 Conn. App. 204 (Conn. App. 2004) (held 11 U.S.C. § 108(b) limits extension of foreclosure redemption period to 60 days)
- In re Canney, 284 F.3d 362 (2d Cir. 2002) (Second Circuit held § 108(b) governs law-day extensions after a bankruptcy petition)
- Sovereign Bank v. Licata, 178 Conn. App. 82 (Conn. App. 2017) (explains strict foreclosure, equity of redemption, and vesting of title)
- Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Melahn, 148 Conn. App. 1 (Conn. App. 2014) (discusses equitable discretion in foreclosure and interplay with statutory limits)