U.S. Bank, Nat'l Ass'n v. Mamudi
| Decision Date | 21 April 2020 |
| Docket Number | AC 42415 |
| Citation | 231 A.3d 297,197 Conn.App. 31 |
| Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
| Parties | U.S. BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Trustee v. Melissa L. MAMUDI et al. |
Christopher G. Brown, for the appellants (defendant Wellsville Properties, LLC, et al.).
Tara L. Trifon, with whom, on the brief, was Melanie Dykas, for the appellee (plaintiff).
Scott M. Harington, for the appellees (intervenors).
In this appeal, which stems from a fourteen year old foreclosure action, the defendants Wellsville Properties, LLC (Wellsville), and John C. Pastor (Pastor)1 appeal from the judgment of the trial court denying, as untimely, their motions to reargue the court's decisions granting two motions for orders filed by the plaintiff, U.S. Bank, National Association, as Trustee for RASC 2005-AHL1.2 On appeal, the defendants claim that (1) the court abused its discretion in denying their motions to reargue as untimely where, as here, those motions asserted mistakes of law in the court's rulings on the plaintiff's motions for orders, (2) the court erred in ruling that the law days were not "automatically vacated" pursuant to General Statutes § 49-15 (b) as a result of a bankruptcy petition filed by Wellsville on February 20, 2018, (3) the court improperly determined that the bankruptcy stay was eliminated by 11 U.S.C. § 362 (c) (4) (A) (i) (2012),3 and (4) even if § 49-15 (b) does not apply, pursuant to federal law, 11 U.S.C § 108 (b) (2012),4 Wellsville's bankruptcy petition extended the law days by up to sixty days to April 17, 2018, a date well past the February 20, 2018 date set forth in the foreclosure judgment. This action resulted in harm to the defendants in that they lost the right to move to open the judgment and to further extend the law days when the court ruled on the motions for orders on March 12, 2018, before the commencement of the extended law days on April 17, 2018. We conclude that there is no practical relief available to the defendants and, therefore, that the court should have dismissed as moot, rather than denied, their motions to reargue.
The record reveals the following undisputed relevant facts and procedural history. In June, 2005, Melissa L. Mamudi (Mamudi) had executed and delivered to Accredited Home Lenders, Inc., a note for a loan in the original principal amount of $880,000. As security for the note, Mamudi executed a mortgage on certain property she owned that was located at 148 North Lake Shore Drive in Brookfield (property). The mortgage subsequently was assigned to the plaintiff. After Mamudi defaulted on the note, the plaintiff, as the holder of the mortgage and note, elected to accelerate the balance due on the note and provided Mamudi with written notice of the default, which Mamudi neglected to cure. The plaintiff thereafter commenced the present action on December 1, 2006, seeking to foreclose the mortgage on the property. The trial court, Mintz, J. , granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment as to liability in May, 2007.
Pursuant to a quitclaim deed dated August 21, 2007, Mamudi deeded the property to SROTSAPNEVES-NLS, Inc., which, in turn, quitclaimed the property to Laurie J. Pastor on August 26, 2008. Laurie J. Pastor further deeded the property to herself and Wellsville via a quitclaim deed dated June 3, 2011. Thereafter, Laurie J. Pastor quitclaimed her interest in the property to Pastor, which was recorded on the land records on November 6, 2012. Wellsville and Pastor have since been co-owners of the property. The plaintiff amended its complaint to reflect the ownership interests of Wellsville and Pastor.
On July 9, 2012, the court, Pavia, J. , rendered a judgment of strict foreclosure and determined the fair market value of the property to be $833,000, the amount of the debt as of that date to be $1,456,804.12, and certain other fees and costs. The court set law days to commence on November 13, 2012. As a result of bankruptcies filed by multiple defendants, the law days were reset multiple times. Relevant to this appeal, in response to a motion to open and extend the law days filed by Pastor, the court, Russo, J. , on March 14, 2017, ordered that the law days be extended for the final time to April 18, 2017. On April 17, 2017, prior to the commencement of the law days, Wellsville filed a petition under chapter 7 of the United States Bankruptcy Code; see 11 U.S.C. § 701 et seq. (2012) ; which was dismissed on August 4, 2017. Also, on July 13, 2017, the Bankruptcy Court had entered an order granting Pastor a bankruptcy discharge related to a chapter 7 bankruptcy petition that he had filed. Accordingly, on October 4, 2017, the plaintiff filed another motion to reset the law days, which the court granted on October 16, 2017. Specifically, the court found that the Bankruptcy Court had issued an order of discharge on July 13, 2017, allowing the plaintiff to proceed with the foreclosure. The court further determined the fair market value of the property and the amount of the debt, and set new law days to commence on December 12, 2017. On December 11, 2017, one day prior to the commencement of the law days, Wellsville filed a second bankruptcy petition, which was dismissed on January 2, 2018.
Thereafter, on January 8, 2018, the plaintiff filed a "Motion for Order of No Bankruptcy Stay," in which it alleged that because Wellsville had filed two bankruptcy proceedings that were pending within the previous year, both of which had been dismissed, if and when Wellsville filed a third bankruptcy proceeding, a stay would not automatically be imposed upon the filing of such a proceeding pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362 (a) (2012).5 Therefore, the plaintiff alleged that with no automatic stay imposed, the law days would be permitted to commence as scheduled. On January 22, 2018, the court granted the plaintiff's motion to reset the law days following the bankruptcy filing, and made updated findings regarding the fair market value of the property and the amount of the debt and appraiser fees. It then set the law days to commence on February 20, 2018. Wellsville subsequently filed its third bankruptcy petition on February 16, 2018, as of which time the trial court had not yet acted on the plaintiff's motion for order. The plaintiff, in turn, filed a second motion for order on February 27, 2018, seeking an order that the law days had commenced and that title had vested in the plaintiff on February 23, 2018. Specifically, the plaintiff alleged that (1) the automatic stay provision of § 49-15 (b) did not apply because Wellsville was not a mortgagor under § 49-15 (b), which applies only if a mortgagor files a bankruptcy petition, and (2) there was no automatic stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362 (c) (4) (A) (i) (2012), where, as here, Wellsville had filed two bankruptcy proceedings that were pending within the previous year and had been dismissed. Accordingly, the plaintiff alleged that because no automatic stay was in effect, with the passing of the law days title vested absolutely in the plaintiff. The defendants did not file objections to either of the plaintiff's motions for orders.
The Bankruptcy Court entered an order dismissing Wellsville's third bankruptcy petition on March 8, 2018, and notice of that dismissal was filed on March 13, 2018. On March 12, 2018, the trial court granted both of the plaintiff's motions for orders with orders that simply stated, "Granted." The plaintiff thereafter filed a proposed execution of ejectment on May 2, 2018, to which the defendants filed an objection, which was overruled by the court. The plaintiff subsequently filed a new application for execution of ejectment on July 5, 2018, to which the defendants again objected, claiming that title had not passed and noting that they had filed a writ of error6 concerning the trial court's order overruling their objection to the execution of ejectment. The court never ruled on that objection, and an execution of ejectment issued on September 4, 2018. Subsequently, the purchasers of the property, Armando Bernardo and Maria Bernardo,7 filed a motion to intervene in the action, which the court, Mintz, J. , granted on October 29, 2018. Afterward, the intervenors filed an application on November 1, 2018, for an execution of ejectment to remove the defendants from the property, to which the defendants objected. On December 3, 2018, the defendants filed two motions to reargue the court's March 12, 2018 decisions granting the plaintiff's motions for orders. The court, Russo, J. , denied as untimely both motions to reargue on December 6, 2018, and the defendants appealed to this court challenging the denials of their motions to reargue.
After this appeal was filed, the plaintiff filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, claiming that it was frivolous and that it was moot in that absolute title to the property had vested in the plaintiff when the defendants failed to redeem on the passing of the law days that were scheduled to commence on February 20, 2018. This court denied the motion to dismiss the appeal without prejudice and permitted the parties to brief the merits of the mootness issue in their appellate briefs. In their brief, the defendants argue that the appeal is not moot because title never vested in the plaintiff and that, even if it did, dismissing the appeal as moot would deprive them of their due process right to appeal the orders confirming that title vested in the plaintiff. According to the defendants, "[s]ince a party cannot be deprived of the right to appeal a judgment setting law days, it follows that a party cannot be deprived of the right to appeal an order confirming that those law days have already passed." The plaintiff claims that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to consider the motions to reargue after title vested absolutely in the plaintiff.
Before turning to the merits of the appeal, we must first address the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Antonio A. v. Comm'r of Corr.
...have been presented at the time of the original argument." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) U.S. Bank, National Assn . v. Mamudi , 197 Conn. App. 31, 47 n.13, 231 A.3d 297, cert. denied, 335 Conn. 921, 231 A.3d 1169 (2020) ; see also Opoku v. Grant , 63 Conn. App. 686, 692–93, 778 A.2d 9......
-
In re Madison C.
...will not be undermined. The law favors finality of judgments ...." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) U.S. Bank, National Assn. v. Mamudi , 197 Conn. App. 31, 48, 231 A.3d 297, cert. denied, 335 Conn. 921, 231 A.3d 1169 (2020). This principle of law is especially important in child protect......
-
Antonio A. v. Comm'r of Corr.
...could have been presented at the time of the original argument." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) U.S. Bank, National Assn. v. Mamudi, 197 Conn. App. 31, 47 n.13, 231 A.3d 297, cert. denied, 335 Conn. 921, 231 A.3d 1169 (2020); see also Opoku v. Grant, 63 Conn. App. 686, 692-93, 778 A.2d......
-
Rider v. Rider
...have been presented at the time of the original argument." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) U.S. Bank, National Assn . v. Mamudi , 197 Conn. App. 31, 47–48 n.13, 231 A.3d 297, cert. denied, 335 Conn. 921, 231 A.3d 1169 (2020). We review the denial of a motion for reargument under the abu......