Wahba v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.
Citations
- 349 Conn. 483
Syllabus
The plaintiff appealed to the Appellate Court from the judgment of the trial court, which had rendered a judgment of strict foreclosure in favor of the defendant bank. The Appellate Court subsequently affirmed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for the setting of new law days. On remand, the plaintiff objected to the defendant's motion to reset the law days, claiming that the judgment of strict foreclosure did not account for the substantial increase in property values that had occurred during the pendency of the appeal. The plaintiff sought, inter alia, a determina- tion by the trial court regarding whether a foreclosure by sale would be appropriate at that point in light of the increase in the value of the subject property. The trial court concluded, however, that it had no authority to revisit the merits of the strict foreclosure judgment, as it was bound by the Appellate Court's rescript order requiring the setting of new law days. The plaintiff then filed a second appeal with the Appellate Court, claiming that the trial court had incorrectly determined that it had no authority on remand to order a foreclosure by sale. The Appellate Court affirmed, concluding that the plaintiff's claim was barred by the court's earlier decision in Connecticut National Bank v. Zucker- man (31 Conn. App. 440), in which it held that, when an appellate court affirms a judgment of strict foreclosure and remands to the trial court for the setting of new law days, the trial court has no authority on remand to deviate from the appellate court's remand order. The Appellate Court also concluded that, even if a trial court had the authority to order a foreclosure by sale, the plaintiff failed to file a motion to open the judgment for such a purpose or to adduce evidence that a judgment of strict foreclosure, rather than a judgment of foreclosure by sale, would have resulted in a substantial windfall for the defendant. On the granting of certification, the plaintiff appealed t
Judges: Robinson; McDonald; D’Auria; Mullins; Ecker; Alexander; Dannehy
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced 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.