Preview:

****************************************************** The ``officially released'' date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the ``officially released'' date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the ``officially released'' date. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ******************************************************

MICHEL MORAN v. RICKY A. MORNEAU ET AL. (AC 31699)
DiPentima, C. J., and Bishop and Schaller, Js. Argued March 15--officially released June 7, 2011

(Appeal from Superior Court, judicial district of Middlesex, Holzberg, J.) John-Henry M. Steele, for the appellant (plaintiff). Sean P. Clark, for the appellee (defendant Chase Home Finance, LLC).

Opinion

SCHALLER, J. In this foreclosure action, the court rendered judgment of foreclosure by sale and, prior to either the sale or the rendering of a supplemental judgment, determined the parties' priorities with respect to the subject property. The sole issue to be decided in this appeal is whether the trial court's determination of priorities is an appealable final judgment. We conclude that it is not and, accordingly, dismiss the appeal. The following facts and procedural history are relevant to this appeal. The defendant Ricky A. Morneau owns the subject property commonly known as 399 Main Street in Portland. The plaintiff, Michel Moran, commenced this action seeking to foreclose on a judgment lien that she holds on the property. In the operative complaint, the plaintiff alleged that on July 17, 2003, she recorded a ``[n]otice [r]e: [c]onstructive [t]rust 1/2 [o]wnership'' of the subject property on the Portland land records. She obtained a prejudgment attachment against the property in the amount of $54,000, which she recorded on the land records on May 28, 2004. The plaintiff prosecuted a successful breach of contract action against Morneau and was awarded a monetary judgment in the principal amount of $63,061, plus interest.1 She recorded the judgment lien on the land records on February 15, 2006. The defendant Chase Home Finance, LLC (Chase) is the assignee of and successor in interest to a promissory note and mortgage deed in the original principal amount of $185,000, which was recorded on the Portland land records on August 22, 2003.2 The defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (JPMorgan) holds a note secured by a second mortgage in the original principal amount of $50,000, which was recorded on the land records on February 10, 2005. The plaintiff's position is that both the attachment and the judgment lien relate back to the July, 2003 ``[n]otice [r]e: [c]onstructive [t]rust 1/2 [o]wnership,'' which would give her claim priority over that of both Chase and JPMorgan. On September 14, 2009, the court rendered a judgment of foreclosure by sale and set the sale date for November 21, 2009. Thereafter, Chase filed a motion to determine the priorities of the parties' interests in the subject property. In its motion, Chase represented that, due to the apparent lack of equity in the property to satisfy all of the interest sought to be foreclosed, adjudication of the priority issue prior to the sale was critical. The court heard oral argument on Chase's motion. At the court's request, Chase and the plaintiff each filed proposed findings of fact and proposed orders. On November 16, 2009, the court issued notice that it adopted the findings of fact and priorities based on Chase's proposed orders. In so doing, the court found

that the plaintiff's claim did not relate back to the July, 2003 ``[n]otice [r]e: [c]onstructive [t]rust 1/2 [o]wnership'' that she filed on the land records because there was no legal or statutory basis for such filing. Accordingly, Chase's interest, recorded in August, 2003, was given first priority in right. The plaintiff's interest followed by virtue of the notice of attachment that she had recorded in May, 2004. JPMorgan's claim, recorded in February, 2005, followed. The plaintiff filed the present appeal contesting the court's determination of the parties' priorities and, in light of the pending appeal, the court cancelled the sale. Chase moved this court to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the trial court's ordering of the parties' priorities was not an appealable final judgment. We denied the motion to dismiss without prejudice and allowed the parties to address the final judgment issue in their briefs on the merits. The plaintiff claims that the order determining the priorities of the parties is an appealable final judgment because the order so concludes the rights of the parties that further proceedings cannot affect them.3 Specifically, she claims that she would suffer an irreparable loss of her right to first priority. She argues that, as the party with second priority, should she bid successfully for the property at the foreclosure sale, she would take title to it subject to Chase's mortgage.4 Should another party prevail, Chase's interest would be paid in full before she received any payment at all. She maintains that the combined value of her judgment lien and the debt owed to Chase exceeds the equity in the property. Accordingly, she argues that her challenge to the trial court's order, which subordinated her interest to that of Chase, is necessary to prevent an irreparable loss of her right to challenge the determination of priorities. She argues, therefore, that the order constitutes an appealable final judgment. We disagree. We begin by setting forth our standard of review. ``The lack of a final judgment implicates the subject matter jurisdiction of an appellate court to hear an appeal. A determination regarding . . . subject matter jurisdiction is a question of law [over which we exercise plenary review].'' (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Brown & Brown, Inc. v. Blumenthal, 288 Conn. 646, 651

Download Moran v. Morneau.pdf

Connecticut Law