City of Milford v. Recycling, Inc.

• Decision Date: 21 June 2022
• Docket Number: AC 44819
• Citation: 278 A.3d 1119,213 Conn. App. 306
• Parties: CITY OF MILFORD v. RECYCLING, INC., et al.
• Court: Connecticut Court of Appeals

213 Conn.App. 306

278 A.3d 1119

CITY OF MILFORD

v.RECYCLING, INC., et al.

AC 44819

Appellate Court of Connecticut.

Argued March 3, 2022

Officially released June 21, 2022

Janine M. Becker, Bridgeport, with whom, on the brief, was Patricia Moore, for the appellant(defendantDonna Stewart, Trustee).

Matthew B. Woods, Norwalk, for the appellee(plaintiff).

Moll, Cradle and Bear, Js.

PER CURIAM.

In this municipal tax lien foreclosure action, the defendantDonna Stewart, Trustee,¹ appeals

from the judgment of the trial court sustaining the objection of the plaintiff, the city of Milford, and denying her motion to open the existing judgment of foreclosure and to extend the sale date ordered therein.On appeal, the defendant claims that the court erred in concluding that, considering the equities advanced by both parties for the court's consideration, the balancing of those equities favored the plaintiff.²In response, the plaintiff argues that the judgment of the court should be affirmed because the court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that those equities favored the plaintiff.We agree with the plaintiff and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the court.

The following facts and procedural history are relevant to our resolution of the defendant's appeal.The defendant is the holder of a first mortgage on commercial property located at 990 Naugatuck Avenue in Milford (property).On March 24, 2010, the plaintiff instituted the present municipal tax lien foreclosure action.On July 27, 2015, the court, Honorable Arthur A. Hiller , judge trial referee, rendered a judgment of strict foreclosure and set law days to commence on February 1, 2016.On July 27, 2020, after the disposition of numerous

bankruptcy petitions and motions filed by one or more of the parties, the court, Abrams , J. , opened the foreclosure judgment and reset the law days to commence on September 9, 2020.

On August 27, 2020, the defendant filed a motion to open the judgment of strict foreclosure and to convert it to a judgment of foreclosure by sale with a proposed sale date of August 28, 2021.On August 28, 2020, the court, Tyma , J. , denied the defendant's motion without prejudice to refiling the motion to indicate the position of any appearing parties.On September 1, 2020, the defendant filed a caseflow request with an attached memorandum stating the position of the various appearing parties with respect to the motion and the proposed sale date.On September 2, 2020, the court granted the motion and converted the judgment to a judgment of foreclosure by sale, with a sale date set for June 26, 2021.

On May 14, 2021, the defendant filed a motion to reopen the judgment and extend the sale date, claiming that "there [was] a buyer interested in the property at a significant purchase price and that there [was] a written option and contract negotiations [were] ongoing."The plaintiff disputed the merits of this claim because of, inter alia, the defendant's failures to identify the alleged buyer and to provide any supporting documentation.On June 17, 2021, after a hearing, Judge Hiller denied the defendant's motion to open and set the sale date for July 24, 2021.This appeal followed.

"The standard of review of [a denial of a motion to open] a judgment of foreclosure by sale ... is whether the trial court abused its discretion....In determining whether the trial court has abused its discretion, we must make every reasonable presumption in favor of the correctness of its action....Our review of a trial court's exercise of the legal discretion vested in it is limited to the questions of whether the trial court

correctly applied the law and could reasonably have reached the conclusion that it did."(Internal quotation marks omitted.)

McCord v. Fredette , 92 Conn. App. 131, 132–33, 883 A.2d 1258(2005).

In the present case, at the hearing on the defendant's motion to open the judgment of foreclosure by sale and extend the sale date, the court stated the following in support of its decision to deny the defendant's motion: "The court has reviewed all the papers and considered all the arguments.The court believes that the equities are clearly in favor of the plaintiff.There is no reason that the ... taxpayers should fund this defendant's project or use of the premises.The equities require a sale so [that the plaintiff] can pay its obligations without adding to the tax bill sent to its taxpayers."In claiming on appeal that the court erred in concluding that the equities favored the plaintiff, the defendant argues that the court abused its discretion by denying the ...