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.

Seminole Realty, LLC v. Sekretaev

Appellate Court of Connecticut

September 10, 2019

SEMINOLE REALTY, LLC
v.
Sergey SEKRETAEV

         Argued May 28, 2019

Page 199

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 200

         The Superior Court, Judicial District of Windham, Boland, J.

         Appeal dismissed in part, and judgment affirmed in part.

          Sergey Sekretaev, self-represented, the appellant (defendant).

         Christine S. Synodi, for the appellee (plaintiff).

         Lavine, Prescott and Eveleigh, Js.

          OPINION

         LAVINE, J.

         [192 Conn.App. 407] The present appeal has its genesis in a foreclosure action commenced by the plaintiff, Seminole Realty, LLC, in 2010. This court affirmed the 2014 judgment of strict foreclosure rendered against the self-represented defendant, Sergey Sekretaev,[1] in Seminole Realty, LLC v. Sekretaev, 162 Conn.App. 167, 169, 131 A.3d 753 (2015), cert. denied, 320 Conn. 922, 132 A.3d 1095 (2016). Since that time, the defendant has filed at least five federal bankruptcy petitions and taken one bankruptcy appeal. The defendant’s present appeal is from the trial court’s judgment overruling his objection to the plaintiff’s proposed execution of ejectment and denying his emergency motion for a stay of ejectment. On appeal, the defendant has raised numerous claims,[2] but only two of

Page 201

them have not been raised previously, [192 Conn.App. 408] namely, that the trial court (1) abused its discretion by overruling his objection to the execution of ejectment and denying his emergency motion for a stay of execution of ejectment because title has not yet vested in the plaintiff and (2) erred in finding that his claims of financial and emotional damages were not of the plaintiff’s making.[3] We conclude that title vested in the plaintiff when the defendant failed to redeem his interest in the subject property following the sixty day extension of the law day. We, therefore, affirm the judgment of the trial court as to the propriety of the order of ejectment and as to the denial of the defendant’s emergency motion for a stay, and dismiss the remainder of the appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See footnote 2 of this opinion.

         The following convoluted procedural history underlies the present appeal. In April, 2009, the defendant purchased a condominium unit located in Sterling (property) and executed a note in the amount of $136,995 that was secured by a mortgage in favor of the plaintiff. Id., at 171, 131 A.3d 753. The defendant failed to make all of the required monthly interest payments on the debt and to pay the entire principal on April 24, 2010, pursuant to the note. Id., at 171-72, 131 A.3d 753. The plaintiff filed a lis pendens on the property in the Sterling land records in June, 2010, and commenced an action to foreclose on the property in August, 2010. The defendant challenged the plaintiff’s standing to bring the foreclosure action numerous times, denied the allegations of the complaint, and pleaded several special defenses and a three count counterclaim against the plaintiff. Id., at 180, 193, 131 A.3d 753. The case was tried in September and October, 2014. Id., at 170, 131 A.3d 753. The court, Boland, J., found that the defendant was liable to the plaintiff in the amount of $181,254.45 and rendered a judgment of strict foreclosure. Id., at 186, 131 A.3d 753. The court set the law day as December 1, 2014. Id. The [192 Conn.App. 409] defendant appealed to this court, which affirmed the judgment of strict foreclosure in December, 2015; id., 167, 131 A.3d 753; and our Supreme Court denied the defendant’s petition for certification to appeal.[4] Seminole Realty, LLC v. Sekretaev, 320 Conn. 922, 132 A.3d 1095 (2016).

Page 202

          In February, 2014, while the foreclosure case was pending, the defendant filed a petition under chapter 13 of the United Stated Bankruptcy Code; see 11 U.S.C. § 1301 et seq. (2012); but voluntarily withdrew the petition on February 20, 2014. In April, 2014, the defendant filed a second chapter 13 petition, which the bankruptcy court dismissed with prejudice. In addition, the bankruptcy court barred the defendant from filing a further bankruptcy petition for 180 days. In November, 2014, the defendant filed a voluntary petition under chapter 7 of the United States Bankruptcy Code; see 11 U.S.C. § 701 et seq. (2012); and a motion to avoid a lien on the ...


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.