Amo v. Pincince
747 A.2d 1, 252 Conn. 934, 2000 Conn. LEXIS 72
This text of 747 A.2d 1 (Amo v. Pincince) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Connecticut primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Bluebook
Amo v. Pincince, 747 A.2d 1, 252 Conn. 934, 2000 Conn. LEXIS 72 (Colo. 2000).
Opinion
The plaintiffs petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 55 Conn. App. 767 (AC 19304), is granted, limited to the following issues:
“1. Did the Appellate Court properly decline to review the plaintiffs 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 plaintiffs 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?”
VERTEFEUILLE, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this petition.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Amo v. Pincince
760 A.2d 1263 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 2000)
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bluebook (online)
747 A.2d 1, 252 Conn. 934, 2000 Conn. LEXIS 72, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/amo-v-pincince-conn-2000.