164 Conn.App. 479
Conn. App. Ct.2016Background
- Wells Fargo sued to foreclose a mortgage on property formerly owned by Cynthia Ruggiri; Martin Ruggiri (her husband) was named as a defendant and later acquired the equity of redemption and was substituted as administrator after her death.
- Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment as to liability (filed Nov. 2, 2011; denied Dec. 12, 2011), then filed another motion for summary judgment as to liability on July 11, 2013, which was granted May 16, 2014.
- Plaintiff moved for a judgment of strict foreclosure; the court entered judgment of strict foreclosure on July 7, 2014, and notice was sent July 18, 2014 (law day initially set October 7, 2014).
- The defendant did not timely move to reargue the summary judgment ruling or timely appeal the strict foreclosure judgment within the 20-day appeal period.
- Defendant filed a motion to open the judgment on October 22, 2014 (after the 20-day period); the trial court granted limited relief (resetting the law day) but otherwise denied the motion; defendant appealed the denial of the motion to open.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether this court can review the merits of the underlying summary judgment/strict foreclosure when appeal relates only to a late motion to open | Plaintiff: The appeal from the motion to open cannot be used to relitigate merits because the underlying judgment appeal period expired | Defendant: Seeks review of summary judgment and strict foreclosure via the motion to open appeal | Held: Court limited review to whether trial court abused discretion in denying the motion to open; may not consider merits because defendant missed the 20-day appeal period |
| Whether the defendant’s motion to open (filed Oct. 22, 2014) was timely to reargue summary judgment/strict foreclosure | Plaintiff: Motion to open was untimely to reargue prior rulings; issues were waived for failure to timely reargue or appeal | Defendant: Argued for reopening to reargue prior rulings | Held: Motion to open was untimely for reargument of summary judgment/strict foreclosure; court properly denied reopening except to reset law day |
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion to open | Plaintiff: Trial court’s denial was within discretion because motion sought untimely reargument of final judgment | Defendant: Denied abuse of discretion; sought relief from judgment | Held: No abuse of discretion; trial court’s decision affirmed (great weight given to trial court’s decision) |
| Whether procedural record defects (unsigned transcript) prevent review | Plaintiff: Trial record sufficient; unsigned transcript adequately reveals basis of decision | Defendant: Implicitly challenges record sufficiency | Held: Although no signed transcript, the unsigned transcript adequately revealed the basis of the trial court’s decision, so appellate review proceeded on the limited issue of abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- USA Bank v. Schulz, 143 Conn. App. 412 (2013) (an appeal from denial of a late motion to open is limited to whether the trial court abused its discretion and cannot relitigate merits once appeal period for underlying judgment has expired)
- Danzig v. PDPA, Inc., 125 Conn. App. 242 (2010) (when memorandum of decision or signed transcript is absent, appellate review may be declined unless the record/transcript adequately reveals trial court’s basis for decision)