Superior Court of Connecticut, Judicial District of Stamford-Norwalk, Stamford
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON MOTION TO REARGUE DECISION
OF JANUARY 22, 2016 BY CITY OF STAMFORD DATED FEBRUARY 10,
Kevin Tierney Judge Trial Referee
January 22, 2016 this court issued a fifteen-page Memorandum
of Decision on Defendants' Motion to Open Judgment dated
April 2, 2015. (#136.00.) The Memorandum of Decision was
filed as pleading #136.04. Towards the end of the Memorandum
of Decision this court stated: " The court hereby grants
the defendants' April 2, 2015 Motion to Open Judgment.
(#136.00.)" See #136.04, page 14.
last two paragraphs of the Memorandum of Decision deal with
administrative matters such as a status conference to be held
in the near future, the issuance of a Scheduling Order, a
determination of the status of the companion foreclosure
matter of Pennymac Corp. v. Pepaj, FST CV 13-6019380
S, and a determination of the status of two pending summary
process matters. In addition the defendant, Pennymac Corp.,
had previously requested the court to " take the
appropriate action against the offending parties in order to
uphold the integrity of this Court and the integrity of the
entire judicial process." The last paragraph of the
above Memorandum of Decision requested that the office of
Stamford Civil Case Flow schedule a separate date for an
evidentiary hearing on that defendant's, Pennymac Corp.,
February 4, 2016 the court held a status conference in open
court on the record. The court, in preparation for the status
conference, prepared a list of possible issues to be
discussed at this status conference based on the pleadings
already in the court file. This court prepared list was
furnished to counsel but was not filed as a pleading. The
list stated that if the plaintiff was going to file a Motion
to Reargue addressed to this court's January 22, 2016
Memorandum of Decision (#136.04), no further discussion would
ensue on most of the issues on that list. At the February 4,
2016 status conference the defendant, City of Stamford,
notified the court and the parties that it would be filing
this instant Motion to Reargue. Upon hearing that
information, the court terminated the status conference
without the discussion of most items on its list of issues.
court has applied the well known standards in hearing and
deciding this Motion to Reargue without the need to state
those standards in this Memorandum of Decision. Opoku v.
Grant, 63 Conn.App. 686, 692-93 (2001).
defendants' Motion to Open Judgment was filed on April 2,
2015 on Form JD-CV-107 Rev. 4-12. It was accompanied by a
manuscripted dual motion for a Writ of Audita Querela and for
a Motion for Temporary and Permanent Injunction. (#136.00,
pages 3-6.) The Writ of Audita Querela was granted by Judge
Mintz on May 26, 2015. (#136.02.) This May 26, 2015 order had
the effect of staying the two post-foreclosure judgment
summary process actions that were pending in the Superior
Court, Housing Session at Norwalk against the Pepaj family.
On September 2, 2015 the defendants withdrew their Motion for
Temporary and Permanent Injunction. (#141.00.) Therefore,
this court only had the two-page Form JD-CV-107 Rev. 4-12
Motion to Open Judgment before it.
lawsuit is a foreclosure of a blight lien issued by
plaintiff, the City of Stamford. It was returnable to the
Superior Court at Stamford on September 3, 2013. The City of
Stamford obtained a judgment of strict foreclosure on May 27,
2014. (#131.86.) The Law Day was set for June 17, 2014. None
of the Pepaj defendants had appeared either pro se or by
counsel. Prior to the Law Day the holder of the first
mortgage and a defendant in the City of Stamford blight lien
foreclosure, Pennymac Corp., redeemed and took title to the
real property on its assigned Law Day. (#133.00.) Pending at
that time was a separate foreclosure of a first mortgage,
Pennymac Corp. v. Pepaj, FST CV 13-6019380 S
returnable August 22, 2013. The redemption by Pennymac Corp
rendered its first mortgage foreclosure action moot since
Pennymac Corp. had obtained title by the redemption on its
Law Day established in the City of Stamford blight lien
for the Pepajs filed an appearance in this case on March 23,
2015 followed by this April 2, 2015 Motion to Open Judgment.
Prior to March 23, 2015 no appearances had been filed for Tom
Pepaj or Martha Pepaj, either pro se or by counsel of record.
The entirety of the language inserted in Form JD-CV 107 Rev.
4-12 by Pepaj's counsel of record stated: " See
allegations of Audita Quereta. Plaintiff violated standing
order JD CV 104 D, failing to send notice and filing
certificate of strict foreclosure without certification to
court." In its January 22, 2016 Memorandum of Decision,
this court agreed and found that the judgment of strict
foreclosure must be opened since the plaintiff, City of
Stamford, did not provide the notice to the non-appearing
defendants, Tom and Martha Pepaj, in accordance with the
Superior Court's Uniform Foreclosure Standing Orders,
Form JD-CV-104 Rev. 4-11, Paragraph D. (#136.04 pages 8 and
the May 27, 2014 judgment, the Pepajs had been defaulted.
(#102.86, #103.86.) The Pepajs to date have not filed any
responsive pleading to the plaintiff's blight lien
complaint and resulting foreclosure. The Pepajs have not
filed any other pleading other than this Motion to Open
Judgment and pleadings directly related thereto. The Motion
to Open Judgment did not ask this court to permit the Pepajs
to file any other responsive pleading. It did not ask this
court to set aside or vacate the defaults. It did not ask
this court to open the prior judgment of foreclosure sale.
The Pepajs are still in default despite the fact that the
Motion to Open Judgment as to the judgment of strict
foreclosure has been granted by this court. If a judgment of
strict foreclosure is opened, " the rights and
interests, of each party . . . are restored to the status
that existed on the date judgment was entered." Gen.
Stat. § 49-15(2)(B). The judgment of strict foreclosure
entered on May 27, 2014. The above paragraph addresses the
status of the parties as of May 27, 2014.
plaintiff, City of Stamford, appears to believe that this
court has permitted the defendants, Tom and Martha Pepaj, to
revisit the legality and amount of the underlying blight
lien, to permit the Pepajs to file responsive pleadings, to
vacate and set aside the defaults, to vacate the prior
judgment of foreclosure by sale, and to permit the Pepajs to
engage in discovery. The court's Memorandum of Decision
is silent on each of these subjects. The Motion to Open
Judgment (#136.00) is silent on each of these subjects and
makes no such requests.
court believes that this Motion to Reargue is requesting this
court to issue advisory opinions on the subjects contained in
the previous paragraph. The court cannot issue an advisory
opinion. PHH Mortgage Corporation v. Cameron, 130
Conn.App. 238, 242-43 (2011). " This court will not
speculate on what is not in the record." Connecticut
Housing Finance Authority v. Alfaro, 163 Conn.App. 587,
593 (2016); State v. Begley, 122 Conn.App. 546, 552
court Grants the Motion to Reargue filed by the City of
Stamford dated February 10, 2016 (#159.00) pursuant to P.B.