Argued
March 6, 2019
Procedural
History
Action
to foreclose a mortgage on certain real property owned by the
named defendant, and for other relief, brought to the
Superior Court in the judicial district of Stamford-Norwalk,
where the court, Mintz, J., granted the
motion to intervene as a party defendant filed by Aleksandra
Toczek; thereafter, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., was substituted
as the plaintiff; subsequently, the court rendered a judgment
of strict foreclosure, from which the defendant Aleksandra
Toczek appealed to this court, which dismissed the appeal;
thereafter, the court, Mintz, J., granted
the substitute plaintiff's motion to open the judgment
and to extend the law days and rendered a judgment of strict
foreclosure, from which the defendant Aleksandra Toczek
appealed to this court, which affirmed the judgment and
remanded the case for the purpose of setting new law days;
subsequently, the court, Genuario, J.,
granted the substitute plaintiff's motion to reset the
law days and set new law days, and the defendant Aleksandra
Toczek appealed to this court; thereafter, the court,
Genuario, J., issued an order terminating
the automatic appellate stay for any subsequent appeals;
subsequently, this court dismissed the appeal and granted the
motion for review filed by the defendant Aleksandra Toczek
but denied the relief requested therein; thereafter, the
defendant Aleksandra Toczek filed motions for reconsideration
en banc; subsequently, the court, Genuario,
J., granted the substitute plaintiff's motion to
reset the law days and set new law days, and the defendant
Aleksandra Toczek appealed to this court; thereafter, this
court denied the defendant Aleksandra Toczek motions for
reconsideration en banc; subsequently, the substitute
plaintiff filed a motion to dismiss the appeal; thereafter,
the court, Genuario, J., denied the motion
to open the judgment and to extend the law days filed by the
defendant Aleksandra Toczek; subsequently, the court,
Genuario, J., denied the motion to reargue
filed by the defendant Aleksandra Toczek, and the defendant
Aleksandra Toczek filed an amended appeal; thereafter, the
substitute plaintiff filed a motion to dismiss the appeal and
the amended appeal. Reversed; further proceedings; motion
to dismiss appeal denied; amended appeal dismissed.
Aleksandra Toczek, self-represented, the appellant
(intervening defendant).
David
M. Bizar, with whom, on the memorandum, was J. Patrick
Kennedy, for the appellee (substitute plaintiff).
Alvord, Keller, Elgo, Bright and Moll, Js.
OPINION
BRIGHT, J.
In this
foreclosure action, the self-represented defendant,
Aleksandra Toczek, [1] appeals from the judgments of the trial
court granting the motion of the plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank,
N.A., [2] to reset the law days and denying her
motions to open the judgment of strict foreclosure and extend
the law days and to reargue. On November 2, 2018, the
plaintiff filed a motion to dismiss the appeal as frivolous.
On February 14, 2019, the plaintiff filed a second motion to
dismiss this appeal as moot and the amended appeal as moot
and frivolous. That motion followed this court's order of
February 4, 2019, in which we raised the question of whether
the trial court's order resetting the law days should be
summarily reversed as being in contravention of the appellate
stay. After considering the parties' written submissions
on that question and hearing oral argument on the matter, we
conclude that, under binding authority from our Supreme
Court, the trial court acted in contravention of the
appellate stay when it reset the law days. We, therefore,
deny the plaintiff's motion to dismiss the appeal and
reverse the court's judgment granting the plaintiff's
motion to reset the law days and setting the law days. We
agree, however, that the defendant's amended appeal is
frivolous and, therefore, grant the plaintiff's motion to
dismiss the amended appeal.
The
following procedural history is relevant to our analysis. In
November, 2008, the original plaintiff, Wachovia Mortgage,
FSB, filed this action seeking to foreclose a mortgage on
real property located at 15 Kenilworth Drive West in
Stamford. In February, 2014, the court, Mintz, J.,
rendered a judgment of strict foreclosure. The defendant
appealed to this court, which dismissed her appeal for lack
of diligence.
The
trial court then reentered the judgment of strict foreclosure
in February, 2015. On appeal, this court affirmed the
judgment and remanded the case to the trial court for the
purpose of setting new law days. Wachovia Bank, FSB v.
Toczek, 170 Conn.App. 904, 155 A.3d 830 (2017), cert.
denied, 328 Conn. 914, 180 A.3d 961 (2018). The plaintiff
filed a motion for order to reset the law days in accordance
with this court's remand order, which the court,
Genuario, J., granted, setting the first law day for
July 24, 2018.
On May
18, 2018, pursuant to Practice Book § 61-11 (d) and (e),
the plaintiff filed a motion to terminate the automatic
appellate stay in § 61-11 (a) prospectively for any
subsequent appeals filed, [3] which the court granted. On July 10,
2018, the defendant filed a third appeal from the court's
resetting the law days. On July 16, 2018, the defendant filed
a timely motion for review of the order of the trial court
terminating the appellate stay. The plaintiff thereafter
filed a motion to dismiss the third appeal as frivolous.
On
September 6, 2018, a panel of this court granted the
plaintiff's motion to dismiss the third appeal as
frivolous and granted the defendant's motion for review
but denied the relief requested therein. On Monday, September
17, 2018, the defendant filed timely motions for
reconsideration en banc of the September 6, 2018 decisions
dismissing the third appeal as frivolous and denying relief
from the termination of the appellate stay. On October 31,
2018, this court en banc denied the defendant's motions
for reconsideration of the dismissal of the third appeal and
the defendant's motion for review.
On
September 14, 2018, before the period for seeking
reconsideration under Practice Book § 71-5 had expired,
the plaintiff filed in the trial court a motion to reset the
law days following this court's dismissal of the third
appeal as frivolous. The defendant filed an objection,
arguing that the trial court could not reset the law days
during the pendency of her motions for reconsideration en
banc of the dismissal of the third appeal and the prospective
termination of the appellate stay. On October 15, 2018, while
the defendant's motions for reconsideration en banc were
still pending before this court, the trial court granted the
plaintiff's motion to reset the law days and set the
first law day for December 4, 2018. The defendant filed the
present, and fourth, appeal on October 25, 2018, challenging
the October 15, 2018 order of the trial court resetting the
law days, and, thereafter, the plaintiff filed a motion to
dismiss the appeal as frivolous.
On
November 26, 2018, the defendant filed a motion to open the
judgment of strict foreclosure and extend the law days, which
the trial court denied. The defendant filed a motion to
reargue, which the court denied. The defendant amended her
fourth appeal to add the trial court's denial of her
motions to open and to reargue. The plaintiff then filed a
motion ...