AMO v. PINCINCE, 254 Conn. 861 (2000)

760 A.2d 1263

CHARLES AMO v. ROBERT J. PINCINCE ET AL.

(SC 16264)Supreme Court of Connecticut

Borden, Katz, Palmer, Ronan and Flynn, Js.

Argued October 24, 2000

Officially released November 21, 2000

Procedural History
Action to foreclose a mechanic’s lien on certain real property owned by the named defendant et al., and for other relief, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Tolland, where the action was withdrawn as against the defendant People’s Bank; thereafter, Ernest Lloyd was impleaded as a party defendant and the court,

Page 862

L. Sullivan, J., granted the plaintiff’s motion for default for failure to appear against the named defendant et al. and his motion for judgment of strict foreclosure, and rendered judgment thereon; subsequently, the court, Stengel, J., granted the motion to open the judgment of strict foreclosure filed by the named defendant et al., and the plaintiff appealed to the Appellate Court, Hennessy, Vertefeuille and Daly, Js., which affirmed the trial court’s granting of the motion to open the judgment of strict foreclosure, and the plaintiff, on the granting of certification, appealed to this court. Appeal dismissed.

Thomas G. Benneche, for the appellant (plaintiff).

John H. Parks, for the appellee (named defendant et al.).

Opinion
PER CURIAM.

In this mechanic’s lien foreclosure action, we granted the petition of the plaintiff, Charles Amo, for certification to appeal from the judgment of the Appellate Court affirming the trial court’s granting of the motion of the defendants, Robert J. Pincince and Joan C. Pincince,[1] to open the judgment of strict foreclosure.[2] Amo v. Pincince, 55 Conn. App. 767,

Page 863

740 A.2d 895 (1999). After reviewing the record on appeal and considering the briefs and oral arguments of the parties, we have determined that the appeal in this case should be dismissed on the ground that certification was improvidently granted.

The appeal is dismissed.

[1] Ernest Lloyd was impleaded as a defendant in the trial court, but he is not involved in this appeal.

[2] We granted the plaintiff’s petition for certification to appeal limited to the following issues: (1) “Did the Appellate Court properly decline to review the plaintiff’s claim based on an inadequate record, where the plaintiff appealed the issue of the trial court’s jurisdiction to open a foreclosure judgment after title to the property had passed from the defendants, and the record included the judgment of foreclosure, the passing of the law days, the vesting of title in another party, the motion to open judgment being filed after title had vested, and the decision granting the motion over the plaintiff’s jurisdictional argument being entered after title had vested?

(2) “Whether the Appellate Court, in light of General Statutes §49-15, properly affirmed the trial court’s order granting a motion to open a foreclosure judgment, when the motion was filed, and the decision granting it was rendered, after title to the subject property had vested in another party?” Amo v. Pincince, 252 Conn. 934, 747 A.2d 1 (2000).

Page 901