Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Ruggiri, 041216 CTCA, AC 37530

Docket Nº:AC 37530
Opinion Judge:PER CURIAM.
Party Name:WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. v. CYNTHIA S. RUGGIRI ET AL.
Attorney:Martin Ruggiri, self-represented, the appellant (defendant). David Bizar, with whom, onthe brief, was Benjamin T. Staskiewicz, for the appellee (plaintiff).
Judge Panel:DiPentima, C. J., and Beach and Mullins, Js.
Case Date:April 12, 2016
Court:Appellate Court of Connecticut
 
FREE EXCERPT

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.

v.

CYNTHIA S. RUGGIRI ET AL.

No. AC 37530

Court of Appeals of Connecticut

April 12, 2016

Argued February 10, 2016

(Appeal from Superior Court, judicial district of Waterbury, M. Taylor, J.)

Martin Ruggiri, self-represented, the appellant (defendant).

David Bizar, with whom, onthe brief, was Benjamin T. Staskiewicz, for the appellee (plaintiff).

DiPentima, C. J., and Beach and Mullins, Js.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

The defendant Martin Ruggiri1 appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying his ‘‘motion to reopen judgment of strict foreclosure and motion to reargue and set aside motion for summary judgment’’ (motion to open). In the motion to open, the defendant sought to reargue the motion for summary judgment as to liability filed by the plaintiff, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., which the court previously had granted. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court erred in granting the plaintiff’s summary judgment motion, on the basis of which it rendered a judgment of strict foreclosure.2 The plaintiff counters that the defendant may not use the current appeal, which relates only to the ruling on the motion to open, to raise issues regarding the judgment of strict foreclosure and the granting of the motion for summary judgment. Because the only issue properly before us is whether the court abused its discretion in denying the motion to open, and because we conclude that it did not, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.3

The plaintiff commenced this action on March 8, 2010, seeking to foreclose a mortgage on real property then owned by Cynthia S. Ruggiri, the defendant’s late wife, at 421 Andrew Avenue, Naugatuck. The defendant initially was named as a defendant because he was alleged to have an interest in the property by virtue of a mortgage recorded on June 8, 2009, in the Naugatuck land records. He subsequently became the owner of the equity of redemption in the property subject to foreclosure by way of a quitclaim deed from Cynthia S. Ruggiri executed on March 19, 2011. When she died shortly thereafter, the defendant, in his capacity as administrator of her estate, was substituted for her as a defendant.

On November 2, 2011, the plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment as to liability only, which the court, M. Taylor, J., denied without opinion on December 12, 2011. On July 11, 2013, the plaintiff filed another motion for summary judgment as to liability only, which the court, Hon. Joseph H. Pellegrino, judge trial referee...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP