New Haven Savings Bank v. Mongillo

Decision Date29 January 2002
Docket Number(AC 20299)
Citation789 A.2d 547,67 Conn. App. 799
CourtConnecticut Court of Appeals
PartiesNEW HAVEN SAVINGS BANK v. ANGELO MONGILLO ET AL.

Foti, Schaller and Mihalakos, Js. Ralph C. Crozier, with whom, on the brief, was Michael P. Gannon, for the appellant (defendant Cosmina Setaro).

Robert N. Sensale, with whom, on the brief, was Joseph J. Sensale, for the appellee (plaintiff).

Opinion

MIHALAKOS, J.

The defendant Cosmina Setaro1 appeals from the judgment of the trial court approving a sale after a judgment of foreclosure by sale. On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court improperly granted the committee's motion for the acceptance and the approval of the committee's report, deed and sale and denied her motion to reconsider and request for reargument. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The following facts and procedural history are relevant to our disposition of this appeal. On September 24, 1987, Antonio Setaro executed a promissory note in the principal amount of $230,000 payable to Colony Savings Bank. The note was secured by a mortgage on real property located at 59 Nonnewaug Road in Bethlehem. Subsequently, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation was appointed receiver of Colonial Savings Bank.

The New Haven Savings Bank purchased the note from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation on July 15, 1992, and the note and mortgage were transferred by a written notice of transfer. On January 20, 1998, following Antonio Setaro's default for nonpayment, the plaintiff commenced this foreclosure action. Thereafter, on September 7, 1999, the court, Sheedy, J., rendered a judgment of foreclosure by sale. After determining the amount of the costs and debt that was due on the note, the court appointed a committee and ordered the property to be sold at auction on October 23, 1999.

The property was sold to the highest bidder on October 23, 1999. Subsequently, the committee filed a motion for approval of the committee's sale, acceptance of the committee's report, approval of the committee's deed and allowance of fees and expenses of the committee and appraiser, to which the defendant objected. After a hearing, the court, DiPentima, J., accepted the committee's report, approved the committee's deed, confirmed the sale and rendered judgment. The court did not issue a written decision in this matter. Thereafter, on November 30, 1999, the defendant filed a request for reconsideration and to reargue, which the court denied on December 14, 1999. This appeal followed.

The defendant argues that the court abused its discretion when it confirmed the sale and overruled her objection. She further argues that the court abused its discretion when it denied her motion for reconsideration and to reargue. We decline to review these claims because the defendant has failed to provide an adequate record.

"The duty to provide this court with a record adequate for review rests with the appellant." Chase Manhattan Bank/City Trust v. AECO Elevator Co., 48 Conn. App. 605, 607, 710 A.2d 190 (1998); see Practice Book § 60-5. In the case now before us, the record is inadequate for review because the court did not issue a written decision or a signed transcript of its approval of the sale or of its denial of the motion for reconsideration and to reargue. See Practice Book § 64-1.

This court has on occasion, however, reviewed an appellant's claims in light of an unsigned transcript as long as the relevant transcript contains a sufficiently detailed and concise statement of the trial court's findings. See Connecticut National Bank v. Browder, 30 Conn. App. 776,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • State v. Fermaint, No. 25192.
    • United States
    • Connecticut Court of Appeals
    • September 27, 2005
    ...appellant's responsibility to furnish a record adequate for review of the issues he raises on appeal. New Haven Savings Bank v. Mongillo, 67 Conn. App. 799, 801, 789 A.2d 547 (2002). 13. From the record provided, however, I note that many of the continuances were granted at the defendant's ......
  • First National Bank of Chicago v. Maynard
    • United States
    • Connecticut Court of Appeals
    • March 4, 2003
    ...court with a record adequate for review rests with the appellant." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) New Haven Savings Bank v. Mongillo, 67 Conn. App. 799, 801, 789 A.2d 547 (2002). In light of the inadequate record before us, we decline to review this 7. General Statutes § 49-25 provides......
  • Konefal v. Konefal
    • United States
    • Connecticut Court of Appeals
    • April 29, 2008
    ...made by us respecting this claim would be entirely speculative." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) New Haven Savings Bank v. Mongillo, 67 Conn.App. 799, 802, 789 A.2d 547 (2002). "[S]peculation and conjecture ... have no place in appellate review." (Citation omitted; internal quotation ma......
  • Nikituk v. Field Co. Builders, LLC
    • United States
    • Connecticut Court of Appeals
    • March 25, 2008
    ...findings. See Connecticut National Bank v. Browder, 30 Conn.App. 776, 778-79, 622 A.2d 588 (1993); cf. New Haven Savings Bank v. Mongillo, 67 Conn.App. 799, 802, 789 A.2d 547 (2002). We address the merits of the defendant's claims because the court's findings and legal reasoning are reveale......
  • 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