*********************************************** 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. *********************************************** USAA FEDERAL SAVINGS BANK v. CHARLES DONALD GIANETTI ET AL. (AC 42037) Lavine, Moll and Sheldon, Js. Syllabus The plaintiff sought to foreclose a mortgage on certain real property owned by the defendant. The trial court granted the plaintiff’s motion for sum- mary judgment as to liability and rendered judgment of strict foreclosure. The trial court then granted the plaintiff’s motion to strike a counterclaim filed by the defendant and denied the defendant’s motion to open the judgment, and the defendant appealed to this court. Held: 1. The defendant could not prevail on his claim that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion to open the judgment of strict foreclosure as the court acted well within its discretion in determining that the defendant had not established good cause for opening the judgment: although the defendant pleaded that he informed the court through a colleague at the earliest opportunity that he could not attend the hearing on the motion for a judgment of strict foreclosure due to medical reasons, he acknowledged that the transcript of the hearing in question did not reflect that any such information had been received by the court; moreover, the court did not receive any information about why or how the defendant’s failure to attend court that day had prevented him from making any material input to the court’s decision whether to grant the plaintiff’s motion for a judgment of strict foreclosure. 2. This court did not address the defendant’s claim challenging, on due process grounds, the manner in which his motion to open was adjudi- cated, as that claim was not preserved for appellate review because it was not been presented to and decided by the trial court. 3. This court did not review the defendant’s claim that the trial court erred in adjudicating the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, the defendant having failed to timely …Original document

This content is restricted to site members only. If you are an existing user, please log in to "My Account". New users may register here 

Existing Users Log In
New User Registration
*Required field