New Haven Savings Bank v. Gurland

Connecticut Appellate Court

New Haven Savings Bank v. Gurland

489 A.2d 1070, 3 Conn. App. 508, 1985 Conn. App. LEXIS 906

CourtConnecticut Appellate Court

DecidedApril 9, 1985

Docket2660

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 489 A.2d 1070 (New Haven Savings Bank v. Gurland) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Appellate Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

New Haven Savings Bank v. Gurland, 489 A.2d 1070, 3 Conn. App. 508, 1985 Conn. App. LEXIS 906 (Colo. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

In this action for foreclosure of a mortgage, the named defendant has appealed from the trial court’s denial of his third motion to “reopen judgment and extend law day.” “A motion to open a judgment of strict foreclosure is addressed to the discretion of the trial court; see General Statutes § 49-15; and ‘ “unless that discretion was abused or was based upon [509]*509some error in law, the denial of the motion must stand.” Carrington v. Muhlfeld, 122 Conn. 334, 337, 189 A.2d 184 [1937].’ Sebastiano v. Corde, 171 Conn. 324, 325-26, 370 A.2d 946 (1976).” Melillo v. Spiro, 187 Conn. 333, 334, 445 A.2d 921 (1982). The named defendant has failed to show that the trial court abused its discretion or that its exercise of discretion was based on an error in law.

There is no error; the case, however, is remanded with direction to render judgment as on file except for such modification as is made necessary by the lapse of time since the original judgment.

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

Per Curiam.

In this action for foreclosure of a mortgage, the named defendant has appealed from the trial court’s denial of his third motion to “reopen judgment and extend law day.” “A motion to open a judgment of strict foreclosure is addressed to the discretion of the trial court; see General Statutes § 49-15; and ‘ “unless that discretion was abused or was based upon [509]*509some error in law, the denial of the motion must stand.” Carrington v. Muhlfeld, 122 Conn. 334, 337, 189 A.2d 184 [1937].’ Sebastiano v. Corde, 171 Conn. 324, 325-26, 370 A.2d 946 (1976).” Melillo v. Spiro, 187 Conn. 333, 334, 445 A.2d 921 (1982). The named defendant has failed to show that the trial court abused its discretion or that its exercise of discretion was based on an error in law.

There is no error; the case, however, is remanded with direction to render judgment as on file except for such modification as is made necessary by the lapse of time since the original judgment.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

489 A.2d 1070, 3 Conn. App. 508, 1985 Conn. App. LEXIS 906, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/new-haven-savings-bank-v-gurland-connappct-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack