New Haven Savings Bank v. Mongillo

• Decision Date: 29 January 2002
• Docket Number: (AC 20299)
• Citation: 789 A.2d 547,67 Conn. App. 799
• Court: Connecticut Court of Appeals
• Parties: NEW HAVEN SAVINGS BANK v. ANGELO MONGILLO ET AL.

67 Conn. App. 799

789 A.2d 547

NEW HAVEN SAVINGS BANK v.ANGELO MONGILLO ET AL.

(AC 20299)

Appellate Court of Connecticut.

Argued October 25, 2001.

Officially released January 29, 2002.

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);seePractice 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.SeePractice 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.SeeConnecticut National Bank v. Browder,30 Conn. App. 776, 778-79, 622 A.2d 588(1993);cf....