Legal Opinion

New Haven Savings Bank v. Gurland

Connecticut Appellate Court

Decided April 9, 1985No. 2660PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Per 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 *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…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Carrington v. MuhlfeldSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1937
  2. Melillo v. SpiroSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1982
  3. Sebastiano v. CordeSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1976

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Countrywide Home Loans Servicing, L.P. v. PetersonConnecticut Appellate Court · 2017
  2. Brooklyn Savings Bank v. FrimbergerConnecticut Appellate Court · 1992
  3. Centerbank v. ConnellConnecticut Appellate Court · 1992
  4. Pacific Mutual Life Insurance v. Broad Associates Ltd. PartnershipConnecticut Appellate Court · 1991
  5. First Union National Bank v. BonitoConnecticut Appellate Court · 1998

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API