· 4/21/2020

U.S. Bank, National Assn. v. Mamudi

Citations

  • 197 Conn. App. 31

Syllabus

The plaintiff bank sought to foreclose a mortgage on certain real property owned by the defendant M. The property was transferred several times via quitclaim deed and was eventually deeded to the defendants W Co. and P. Following the trial court's granting of the plaintiff's motion for judgment of strict foreclosure and the setting of law days, W Co. twice filed for bankruptcy under chapter 7 of the United States Bankruptcy Code (11 U.S.C. § 701 et seq.), and both petitions were dismissed by the Bankruptcy Court. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed a motion, to which W Co. and P did not object, for an order of no bankruptcy stay, alleging that, pursuant to statute (11 U.S.C. § 362), because W Co. had filed two bankruptcy proceedings within the previous year, which had both been dismissed, a stay would not automatically be imposed if W Co. filed a third petition for bankruptcy. After the trial court granted the plaintiff's motion to reset the law days following W Co.'s second bankruptcy filing, W Co. filed a third petition for bankruptcy four days before the law days were set to commence. The plaintiff then filed a second motion for order, to which W Co. and P did not object, seeking to establish that the law days had commenced and title to the subject property had vested in the plaintiff. Specifically, the plaintiff alleged that, pursuant to state statute (§ 49-15) and federal statute, 11 U.S.C. § 362, there was no automatic stay provision in effect following the filing of W Co.'s third petition for bankruptcy. The court granted both of the plaintiff's motions for order. Thereafter, the court granted the motion to intervene filed by the purchasers of the property, A and M, and A and M filed an application for an execution of ejectment to remove W Co. and P from the property. Thereafter, W Co. and P filed motions to reargue the court's granting of the plaintiff's motions for order, which the court denied as untimely, and W Co. and P appealed to this court. Held that ther

Judges: DiPentima; Keller; Norcott

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.