Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

City of Stamford v. Pepaj

Superior Court of Connecticut, Judicial District of Stamford-Norwalk, Stamford

April 25, 2016

City of Stamford
v.
Tom Pepaj et al Opinion No. 133478

          MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON MOTION TO REARGUE DECISION OF JANUARY 22, 2016 BY CITY OF STAMFORD DATED FEBRUARY 10, 2016 (#159.00)

          Hon. Kevin Tierney Judge Trial Referee

         On 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.

         The 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., sanction request.

         On 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.

         This 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).

         The 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.

         This 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 foreclosure.

         Counsel 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 14.)

         As of 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.

         The 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.

         The 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 (2010).

         The court Grants the Motion to Reargue filed by the City of Stamford dated February 10, 2016 (#159.00) pursuant to P.B. § ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.