Court: Connecticut Appellate Court; March 2, 2004; Connecticut; State Appellate Court
In this foreclosure case, Ronald L. Pinciaro appeals the trial court's denial of his motion to reopen the judgment approving the sale of a property. The original foreclosure action was initiated by Bankers Trust Company in February 2001, involving a mortgage executed by Ronald and Nancy M. Pinciaro for $255,200. The Pinciaros defaulted, and the court scheduled a foreclosure sale for June 2, 2001. After several bankruptcy petitions filed by Ronald, the court extended the sale date multiple times, ultimately selling the property for $400,000 on May 11, 2002, and approving the sale on May 28, 2002.
Subsequently, Ronald filed a "Motion to Reargue the Judgment" on June 12, 2002, claiming he was absent during the sale approval hearing and contending that the sale price was too low, proposing a value of $545,000. The court denied this motion on July 10, 2002. Ronald filed another motion to reopen the judgment on the same grounds on June 18, 2002, which was also denied on August 5, 2002.
The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, stating that it did not act unreasonably or abuse its discretion in denying the motions. It emphasized that reasonable presumptions favor the trial court's correctness in such decisions. Additionally, Ronald raised claims regarding the sale approval and the denial of his motion to reargue, but the appellate court found it unnecessary to address these claims given the affirmation of the motion to reopen denial.
During the appeal, Bankers Trust filed a motion to dismiss, which was denied, and sought a termination of the automatic stay of execution, which the trial court also denied but ordered Ronald to pay for use and occupancy of the property. Ronald's motion for clarification regarding this order was addressed by the court, affirming the denial of the stay but allowing the plaintiff compensation for use and occupancy. Ronald subsequently filed a motion for review of this order, seeking relief from the payment obligation, which was granted for review but ultimately denied.
The court's decisions reflect a careful consideration of the procedural history and the defendant's claims, ultimately affirming the trial court's rulings and maintaining the sale and its related orders.
