143 Conn. App. 412
Conn. App. Ct.2013Background
- Defendant Schulz appeals the denial of his May 25, 2012 motion to open judgment and extend the law day.
- That motion sought to reargue plaintiff Customers Bank's July 6, 2011 motion for summary judgment as to liability only, granted October 20, 2011, while Schulz was unrepresented due to his counsel's suspension.
- Plaintiff foreclosed on Schulz's Ridgefield commercial property; a judgment of strict foreclosure and a law day were set for April 17, 2012.
- Schulz obtained new counsel in January 2012 but did not oppose the strict foreclosure motion or file timely post-judgment motions or appeals.
- The trial court denied the May 2012 motion to open, and Schulz appealed; the only issue proper for review is whether the denial of the motion to open was an abuse of discretion.
- The court acknowledged Schulz failed to appeal the underlying strict foreclosure judgment within the statutory period.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the denial of the motion to open judgment was an abuse of discretion | Plaintiff argues the appeal targets an untimely challenge to the underlying merits, which is outside jurisdiction. | Schulz contends the court abused its discretion by denying a timely reargument opportunity with new counsel. | Yes, no abuse of discretion; denial affirmed as untimely reargument. |
| Whether the appeal may review the merits of the underlying judgment | Underlying merits are untimely; review restricted. | If timely, merits could be reviewed via proper post-judgment relief. | No review of underlying merits; only denial of the motion to open is reviewable. |
| Timeliness of the motion to open relative to reargument deadlines | Timeliness governs; late motion to open cannot reargue. | Any late filing should be excused given counsel's replacement and defendant's circumstances. | Untimely by more than six months; court acted within discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- First Connecticut Capital, LLC v. Homes of Westport, LLC, 112 Conn. App. 750 (2009) (appeal from denial of motion to open limited to abuse of discretion and excluded merits review when underlying judgment untimely appealed)
- Ryan v. Vera, 135 Conn. App. 864 (2012) (timeliness limits reargument scrutiny; later decisions control scope of review)
- Walton v. New Hartford, 223 Conn. 155 (1992) (discretionary standard for trial court decisions on motions to open)