Sovereign Bank v. Licata
172 A.3d 1263
Conn. App. Ct.2017Background
- In 2001 James Licata and Cynthia Licata mortgaged two Greenwich parcels to secure a $2.5M loan; Licata defaulted and foreclosure suit followed. The note/mortgage later assigned to Seven Oaks Partners, LP (plaintiff).
- Cynthia Licata filed counterclaims (breach, negligent misrepresentation, CUTPA). Counterclaims were tried to a jury; foreclosure claim was tried to the court. The jury returned verdicts for Licata on the counterclaims and awarded damages; the court rendered a judgment of strict foreclosure and set law days to begin February 6, 2007.
- The plaintiff appealed only the adverse rulings on the counterclaims; neither party appealed the strict foreclosure judgment or the law days setting. Some postjudgment motions and confusion followed about whether an appellate stay affected the foreclosure law days.
- After appeals resolving the counterclaims concluded, plaintiff treated title as having become absolute, obtained a foreclosure certificate and execution for ejectment, and attempted to sell the property; Licata later sought a court determination that her equity of redemption had never been extinguished.
- The trial court declined to issue an advisory ruling or to amend the judgment file but made transcripts of the 2006 hearings part of the record. Licata appealed that denial; Seven Oaks moved to dismiss the appeal as moot on the ground that title had passed to it when the law days expired.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the appeal is moot because Licata’s equity of redemption was extinguished when law days expired | Law days were set in open court in Oct–Nov 2006 and were not stayed, so title became absolute after law days passed and no practical relief is available | If strict foreclosure judgment/law days never properly entered or were stayed, Licata’s equity remains and appeal is not moot | Appeal dismissed as moot: transcripts show strict foreclosure with law days set; no appeal from foreclosure judgment was filed, so appellate stay expired and title passed to plaintiff |
| Whether an appeal from counterclaims stayed enforcement of the foreclosure judgment | The counterclaim appeal did not seek review of the foreclosure judgment and thus did not create a stay affecting law days for the foreclosure judgment | Licata argued earlier motions and the parties’ conduct created ambiguity whether law days had run | Held that appeals from counterclaims and appeals from complaints have separate final-judgment/appeal periods and stays; a counterclaim appeal’s stay did not extend the foreclosure appeal period or bar law days from running |
| Whether the trial court erred by refusing to ‘‘correct the record’’ to reflect the foreclosure judgment and law days | Plaintiff sought correction to show the foreclosure judgment and unmodified law days commencing Feb 6, 2007 | Defendant contended the record was ambiguous and that a judgment may not have properly entered | Court refused to issue an advisory correction but incorporated transcripts; court concluded correction unnecessary because transcripts establish the judgment and law days |
| Whether any procedural irregularities (clerical coding, later motions, appellate confusion) prevent title transfer | Plaintiff: clerical errors and later misstatements do not alter legal effect of an unappealed foreclosure judgment and passing of law days | Defendant: those irregularities create uncertainty about finality and the running of law days | Court: procedural confusion did not change legal reality; law days ran and title became absolute; defendant acquiesced for years and did not seek to open the judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Barclays Bank of New York v. Ivler, 20 Conn. App. 163 (Conn. App. 1989) (an appellate stay prevents law days from having legal effect)
- Cronin v. Gager-Crawford Co., 128 Conn. 401 (Conn. 1941) (appeal from a severable portion of a judgment does not stay the unappealed portions)
- City Lumber Co. of Bridgeport, Inc. v. Murphy, 120 Conn. 16 (Conn. 1935) (passing of law days renders title absolute in mortgagee)
- Ace Equipment Sales, Inc. v. Buccino, 273 Conn. 217 (Conn. 2005) (final judgment on a counterclaim is immediately appealable and separate)
- Essex Savings Bank v. Frimberger, 26 Conn. App. 80 (Conn. App. 1991) (components required for an appealable foreclosure judgment)
- Argent Mortgage Co., LLC v. Huertas, 288 Conn. 568 (Conn. 2008) (appellate courts may resolve issues intertwined with mootness to expedite foreclosure matters)