DocketNumber: No. CV 35 25 14 (A.C. 19312)
Citation Numbers: 1999 Conn. Super. Ct. 4351
Judges: BALLEN, JUDGE TRIAL REFEREE.
Filed Date: 4/29/1999
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 7/5/2016
The court, Ballen, J., ordered a foreclosure by sale on November 23, 1998. The court set a sale date for February 20, 1999, which was to coincide with the sale date set for thePridemore action. On February 18, 1999, the Cusacks filed a motion to open judgment and extend the law day to June 26, 1999. After hearing argument, the motion was denied by the court,Ballen, J. On February 19, 1999, the Cusacks appealed the decision of the court denying her motion to open judgment and extend the law day. The plaintiff now moves to terminate the automatic stay of execution pursuant to Practice Book §
Practice Book §
"It is within the trial court's discretion to determine whether due administration of justice warrants the termination of a stay of execution." North American Bank Trust v. SultanRealty Corp., Superior Court, judicial district of Fairfield at Bridgeport, Docket No. 292441 (April 25, 1995, Thim, J.). "Of consequence is the fact that a stay of execution denies a party successful on the underlying judgment the immediate fruits of victory." Id.
The Cusacks appeal the court's decision on the ground that it did not allow testimony as to the appraisal value of the property. The Cusacks did not propose to offer this testimony until two days before the sale day, and almost four months after judgment of foreclosure by sale was entered. Also, the Cusacks did not file any defense to the underlying foreclosure action.2 Rather than offering a defense to the entry of judgment of foreclosure by sale, the Cusacks filed a motion to reopen and extend the law date. After four months and on the eve of the sale, the Cusacks sought to avoid the sale of the property for the same reasons which have been advanced numerous times in the past in the Pridemore v. Cusack action.3 Therefore, the court finds that the motion to reopen the judgment and extend the sale date and the appeal therefrom have been brought only to delay the eventual sale of the subject premises.
Therefore, this case is procedurally similar to Tolland Bankv. Larson,
In North American Bank Trust v. Sultan Realty Corp., supra, Superior Court, Docket No. 292441, the defendants appealed from a denial of a motion to reopen judgment and extend the law day. The plaintiff moved to terminate the automatic stay. The trial court noted that because the new date proposed by the defendants in their motion had already passed, the defendants, in effect, had obtained the relief which they had unsuccessfully sought in their motion. Therefore, the court found that the stay of execution ceased to serve its intended function as the issue underlying the appeal was moot, and the due administration of justice compelled the court to grant the plaintiff's motion to terminate the stay of execution. See also Flannell v. Kane,
This court recognizes that the Cusacks sought an extension of the sale date to June 26, 1999. The reasoning of the court inNorth American Bank Trust v. Sultan Realty Corp. is nonetheless applicable here, because a new sale date must be set after the termination of the automatic stay. As a practical matter, the new sale date will be after June 26, 1999. As a result, the Cusacks will have successfully delayed the sale to June 26, 1999 and beyond. Thus, as in North American Bank Trust v. Sultan RealtyCorp., the Cusacks will receive the benefit of having the new sale date extended at least until June 26, 1999, regardless of the outcome of the appeal. Under such circumstances, the grounds upon which the Cusacks have appealed are effectively mooted and the due administration of justice requires that this court terminate the automatic stay.
Accordingly, the court grants the plaintiff's motion to terminate the automatic stay on the grounds of both delay and due administration of justice pursuant to Practice Book §
BALLEN, J.T.R.