Crane v. Loomis

Decision Date10 April 1942
Citation25 A.2d 650,128 Conn. 697
CourtConnecticut Supreme Court
PartiesCRANE v. LOOMIS et al.

Appeal from Superior Court, Tolland County; Foster, Judge.

Action by Clarence G. Crane against Frederick D. Loomis and another for the foreclosure of two mortgages brought to the Superior Court in Tolland County where judgment of strict foreclosure was rendered for plaintiff and after the expiration of the law day, upon motion of the defendants, the court set aside the judgment solely as to the law day and fixed a new law day, from which the plaintiff appealed.

Error and case remanded with direction.

Before MALTBIE, C. J, and AVERY, BROWN, JENNINGS, and ELLS, JJ.

John B. Harvey, of Willimantic, for appellant.

Nathan Aaron and Samuel H. Aron, both of Hartford, for appellees.

AVERY, Judge.

From the file in this case it appears that an action was brought to foreclose two mortgages upon certain real estate in the town of Mansfield, and that personal service was had on the two defendants. No appearance or answer having been filed, a judgment of strict foreclosure was granted on June 24, 1941, and the law day fixed at August 5, 1941. Before the expiration of the period limited, a motion to open the judgment and extend the law day having been made on behalf of the defendants and a stipulation having been filed by both parties to that effect, the judgment was opened and a supplemental judgment entered fixing the law day as August 15, 1941. Thereafter, and after the expiration of the law day, on August 29, 1941, the defendants, through different counsel, filed a motion that the judgment theretofore entered in the case be vacated and set aside, alleging as grounds of the motion that the defendants had failed to defend the action because of fraud, accident and mistake and that execution of the judgment would be against equity and good conscience, and the defendants prayed that they be permitted to appear and defend. On September 19, 1941, after hearing statements of counsel, the court reopened the judgment of foreclosure again and entered a new judgment fixing a new law day as of September 30, 1941. From this judgment the plaintiff has appealed.

The trial court has made a finding of facts. It is found that the defendants failed to redeem the mortgaged premises upon the date decreed in the judgment and the title became absolute in the plaintiff on August 16, 1941. This paragraph of the finding is not attacked and must stand. The findings of the trial court which are attacked by the plaintiff are these: Although a substantial equity was shown at the hearing on June 24, 1941, when the law day was fixed as August 5, 1941, a very short law day was granted; between August 5th and 15th, the defendants were successful in obtaining a loan from a third party to pay the judgment debt; the plaintiff was fully aware of the negotiations to obtain this loan, but due to the fact that the lender was on vacation the funds were not actually in the hands of the defendants until August 16th; on August 14th counsel for the defendants, who had recently been retained in place of counsel originally appearing in the case, notified the plaintiff's attorney by telephone that all arrangements were completed to redeem the mortgage on August 16th but the plaintiff's attorney at that time answered, "All right, two days more"; relying on this assurance the defendants' counsel did not make a motion for the extension of the law day beyond August 15th; and, on August 16th, the defendants tendered to the plaintiff's attorney the full amount of the debt with interest and costs and have been able and ready to pay the judgment debt and costs...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Kilduff v. Adams, Inc., 14182
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • 18 Junio 1991
    ...to obtain relief from the operation of the foreclosure judgment after title became absolute in the defendants; see Crane v. Loomis, 128 Conn. 697, 700, 25 A.2d 650 (1942); Hoey v. Investors' Mortgage & Guaranty Co., 118 Conn. 226, 230, 171 A. 438 (1934); Merry-Go-Round Enterprises, Inc. v. ......
  • New Milford Sav. Bank v. Jajer, 15695
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • 31 Marzo 1998
    ...right of redemption after passage of the law day. See Varanelli v. Luddy, 130 Conn. 74, 77, 32 A.2d 61 (1943); Crane v. Loomis, 128 Conn. 697, 700, 25 A.2d 650 (1942). By contrast, in this case we consider whether a mortgagee may open a judgment of foreclosure in order to amend an inadverte......
  • First Federal Bank, FSB v. Whitney Development Corp., 15377
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • 9 Julio 1996
    ...foreclosing plaintiff, upon the failure of the junior mortgagees who are parties defendant to redeem the property"); Crane v. Loomis, 128 Conn. 697, 700, 25 A.2d 650 (1942) (upon failure to redeem, title becomes absolute in mortgagee); City Lumber Co. of Bridgeport, Inc. v. Murphy, 120 Conn......
  • New Milford Sav. Bank v. Jajer, 14888
    • United States
    • Appellate Court of Connecticut
    • 1 Abril 1997
    ...encumbrancer, a judgment of foreclosure cannot be opened. Varanelli v. Luddy, 130 Conn. 74, 77, 32 A.2d 61 (1943); Crane v. Loomis, 128 Conn. 697, 700, 25 A.2d 650 (1942); Burritt Interfinancial Bancorporation v. Wood, 33 Conn.App. 401, 408, 635 A.2d 879 (1994); Citicorp Mortgage, Inc. v. D......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT