U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Armijo

*********************************************** The “officially released” date that appears near the be- ginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be pub- lished in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the be- ginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the “officially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the advance release version of an opinion and the latest version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publica- tions, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. *********************************************** U.S. BANK, N.A., TRUSTEE v. ANTHONY R. ARMIJO ET AL. (AC 42254) Elgo, Devlin and Harper, Js. Syllabus The plaintiff bank, U Co., sought to foreclose a mortgage on certain real property owned by the defendants A and C. A and C were defaulted for failure to plead and the trial court rendered a judgment of strict foreclosure. Thereafter, the court denied C’s postjudgment motion to dismiss, which alleged that U Co. did not have standing. The court granted C’s motion to reargue and ordered that the motion to dismiss be reheard. The court subsequently denied C’s motion to dismiss and C’s motion to reargue that decision. C then filed a second motion to dismiss for lack of standing, which the court denied, and A and C appealed to this court. This court thereafter granted in part U Co.’s motion to dismiss this appeal. Held that this court could not review A and C’s challenge to the judgment from which they had appealed; A and C failed to brief, or even mention, the trial court’s judgment denying their second motion to dismiss, the defendants’ brief was limited to their challenge of the court’s findings of standing and jurisdiction, which were decided in earlier rulings from which a timely appeal was never taken, and the defendants failed to challenge the bases on which the court denied the second motion to dismiss, which were the law of the case doctrine and the denial of C’s motion to reargue. Argued November 20, 2019—officially released February 18, 2020 Procedural History Action to foreclose a mortgage on certain real prop- erty owned by the named defendant et al., brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Stam- ford-Norwalk, where the named defendant et al. were defaulted for failure to plead; thereafter, the court, Hon. David R. Tobin, judge trial referee, rendered judgment of strict foreclosure; subsequently, …Original document