Legal Opinion

Amo v. Pincince

Connecticut Appellate Court

Decided November 16, 1999No. AC 19304PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

2Per curiam

The plaintiff, Charles Amo, appeals from the decision1 of the trial court granting the defendants’ motion to open a judgment of strict foreclosure after the law day had passed and title vested in the plaintiff. The plaintiff claims that the court lacked jurisdiction to open the judgment because General Statutes § 49-15 prohibits the opening of a foreclosure judgment after title has passed. The defendants, Robert J. Pin-cince and Joan C. Pincince, claim that the foreclosure *768judgment was improperly rendered because they were improperly defaulted for failure to appear at a time when…

3Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Chase Manhattan Bank v. AECO Elevator Co.Connecticut Appellate Court · 1998
  2. State v. PhillipsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1974
  3. Cassella v. KleffkeConnecticut Appellate Court · 1995
  4. State v. CombsConnecticut Appellate Court · 1999

4Cited by2 opinions

  1. Amo v. PincinceSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2000
  2. Amo v. PincinceSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2000

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

Powered by the Exa API