189 Conn. App. 812
Conn. App. Ct.2019Background
- Wachovia (later substituted by Wells Fargo) sought strict foreclosure of property owned by Pawel Toczek; Aleksandra Toczek intervened after Pawel quitclaimed his interest to her.
- Trial court entered judgment of strict foreclosure; appeals and remands followed, culminating in this matter over resetting law days after appellate proceedings.
- Trial court set new law days (first law day originally set for July 24, 2018; later reset to December 4, 2018).
- Wells Fargo moved to prospectively terminate the automatic appellate stay; the trial court granted that motion, and Toczek filed a timely motion for review, then a motion for reconsideration en banc of this court’s disposition.
- While Toczek’s motions for reconsideration en banc were pending, the trial court granted Wells Fargo’s motion to reset law days on October 15, 2018; Toczek appealed (fourth appeal) and also sought to open the judgment and extend the law days, which the court denied.
- This appellate panel concluded that resetting law days while an appellate stay (and any timely motion for reconsideration) is pending violates the stay and nullifies the trial court’s order; it reversed the law-day order and dismissed the amended appeal as frivolous.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court violated the appellate stay by resetting law days while Toczek’s motions for reconsideration en banc were pending | Trial court properly reset law days after this court’s initial denial of relief; RAL Management is distinguishable because there the stay was later revived | Any stay remained in effect during the period for filing and disposition of reconsideration; resetting law days while stay pending effects the judgment and is prohibited | Trial court violated the appellate stay; resetting law days while stay or timely reconsideration was pending is impermissible and the order was reversed |
| Whether the appeal from the order resetting law days is moot because the law day passed unredeemed | Law days had effect; appeal is frivolous or moot because title may have vested | Appellate stay was in effect when law days were reset, so the law day had no legal effect; appeal is not moot | Appeal is not moot because the law-day setting was void for violating the stay; motion to dismiss denied |
| Whether denial of reconsideration en banc means the stay was never ‘‘revived’’ and thus trial court action was proper | Denial of reconsideration meant no stay revival was necessary; the stay had ended when this court denied the motion for review | Practice Book §71-6 keeps a stay in effect during the period to file and until disposition of reconsideration; thus stay continued while reconsideration pending | Court held plaintiff’s argument unpersuasive; Practice Book §71-6 preserves the stay during reconsideration, so the trial court erred |
| Whether the amended appeal (challenging denials to open judgment/extend law days and reargue) is frivolous | Amended appeal lacks merit because trial court properly denied relief | Defendant challenged multiple rulings but appellate court found no viable basis after reversing law-day order | Amended appeal dismissed as frivolous |
Key Cases Cited
- RAL Management, Inc. v. Valley View Associates, 278 Conn. 672 (Sup. Ct.) (holding that resetting or changing law days while an appellate stay is pending is an action to carry out the judgment and is ineffective)
- Farmers & Mechanics Savings Bank v. Sullivan, 216 Conn. 341 (Sup. Ct.) (law days in a strict foreclosure have no legal effect while an appellate stay is in place)
- Sovereign Bank v. Licata, 178 Conn. App. 82 (Conn. App. Ct.) (discussing foreclosure, equity of redemption, and the effect of law days and appellate stays)
- Ocwen Federal Bank, FSB v. Charles, 95 Conn. App. 315 (Conn. App. Ct.) (overview of strict foreclosure and the mortgagor’s equity of redemption)