Federal National Mortgage Assoc. v. Valko, No. Cv97 0058013s (Jan. 29, 1999)

Connecticut Superior Court

Federal National Mortgage Assoc. v. Valko, No. Cv97 0058013s (Jan. 29, 1999)

1999 Conn. Super. Ct. 956

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedJanuary 29, 1999

DocketNo. CV97 0058013S

StatusUnpublished

This text of 1999 Conn. Super. Ct. 956 (Federal National Mortgage Assoc. v. Valko, No. Cv97 0058013s (Jan. 29, 1999)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Superior Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Federal National Mortgage Assoc. v. Valko, No. Cv97 0058013s (Jan. 29, 1999), 1999 Conn. Super. Ct. 956 (Colo. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE: MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF STRICT FORECLOSURE AFTER DEFAULT FOR FAILURE TO RESPOND The defendants, Frank and Anna Valko, were defaulted, pursuant to Practice Book § 231, now Practice Book (1998 Rev.) § 13-14, by this court, Curran, J., on December 1, 1997, for failure to respond to discovery. The plaintiff has now moved for strict foreclosure.

The plaintiff's motion for strict foreclosure is the next appropriate step and is properly before the court.

Practice Book § 364, now Practice Book (1998 Rev.) § CT Page 957 17-33(b) provides, in pertinent part, that: "Since the effect of a default is to preclude the defendant from making any further defense in the case so far as liability is concerned, the judicial authority . . . may also render judgment in foreclosure proceedings . . . provided the plaintiff has also made a motion for judgment . . ." Practice Book § 369, now Practice Book (1998 Rev.) § 17-33 applies in situations where default was entered pursuant to Practice Book § 231, now Practice Book (1998 Rev.) § 13-14. See Bonner v. American Financial MarketingCorp., 181 Conn. 57, 57-58, 434 A.2d 323 (1980); see also EasternElectronics v. Codenoll Tech., Superior Court, judicial district of Hartford/New Britain at Hartford (October 25, 1994, Mulcahy, J.). The provision that judgment be entered only upon the parties' motion ensures that the other party is put on notice that if they fail to take any action to protect their interests, they risk the entry of judgment against them. Bonner v. AmericanFinancial Marketing Corp., supra, 181 Conn. 57-58.

Pursuant to Practice Book § 376, now Practice Book (1998 rev.) § 17-42, the defendants could have moved to open the default against them. Though default was entered against the defendants over one year ago, they still have not moved to open default.

The motion for judgment of strict foreclosure is properly before the court and is hereby granted.

This matter is continued until Monday, February 8, 1999 at 10:00 a.m. for determination of the debt, value of the property and the law day.

The Court

By Curran, J.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE: MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF STRICT FORECLOSURE AFTER DEFAULT FOR FAILURE TO RESPOND The defendants, Frank and Anna Valko, were defaulted, pursuant to Practice Book § 231, now Practice Book (1998 Rev.) § 13-14, by this court, Curran, J., on December 1, 1997, for failure to respond to discovery. The plaintiff has now moved for strict foreclosure.

The plaintiff's motion for strict foreclosure is the next appropriate step and is properly before the court.

Practice Book § 364, now Practice Book (1998 Rev.) § CT Page 957 17-33(b) provides, in pertinent part, that: "Since the effect of a default is to preclude the defendant from making any further defense in the case so far as liability is concerned, the judicial authority . . . may also render judgment in foreclosure proceedings . . . provided the plaintiff has also made a motion for judgment . . ." Practice Book § 369, now Practice Book (1998 Rev.) § 17-33 applies in situations where default was entered pursuant to Practice Book § 231, now Practice Book (1998 Rev.) § 13-14. See Bonner v. American Financial MarketingCorp., 181 Conn. 57, 57-58, 434 A.2d 323 (1980); see also EasternElectronics v. Codenoll Tech., Superior Court, judicial district of Hartford/New Britain at Hartford (October 25, 1994, Mulcahy, J.). The provision that judgment be entered only upon the parties' motion ensures that the other party is put on notice that if they fail to take any action to protect their interests, they risk the entry of judgment against them. Bonner v. AmericanFinancial Marketing Corp., supra, 181 Conn. 57-58.

Pursuant to Practice Book § 376, now Practice Book (1998 rev.) § 17-42, the defendants could have moved to open the default against them. Though default was entered against the defendants over one year ago, they still have not moved to open default.

The motion for judgment of strict foreclosure is properly before the court and is hereby granted.

This matter is continued until Monday, February 8, 1999 at 10:00 a.m. for determination of the debt, value of the property and the law day.

The Court

By Curran, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1999 Conn. Super. Ct. 956, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/federal-national-mortgage-assoc-v-valko-no-cv97-0058013s-jan-29-connsuperct-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack