AC46292 - LendingHome Funding Corp. v. REI Holdings, LLC ("The defendant Homeowners Finance Co. appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying its motion to open the judgment of strict foreclosure rendered in favor of the plaintiff, LendingHome Funding Corporation, and denying its motion to reconsider. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court (1) improperly concluded, on the basis that title to the property at issue had become absolute in the plaintiff, that the defendant was not entitled to relief pursuant to General Statutes § 49-15 because, according to the defendant, an appellate stay was in effect when the law days passed, thereby rendering them ineffective, and (2) failed to consider that, even if absolute title had vested in the plaintiff, it had inherent, continuing jurisdiction to open the judgment of strict foreclosure under the circumstances of the present action. We conclude that (1) no appellate stay was in effect when the law days passed, such that the law days were legally effective and, without redemption, absolute title to the property vested in the plaintiff, thereby precluding the defendant from obtaining relief pursuant to § 49-15, and (2) the circumstances of the present action did not justify the exercise of the court's inherent, continuing jurisdiction to afford the defendant equitable relief. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC46309 - Quicken Loans, Inc. v. Rodriguez ("In this residential mortgage foreclosure action, the defendants Jose Rodriguez and Michelle Rodriguez appeal from the judgment of the trial court denying their motion to open, which sought to set aside the court's administrative closure of the file following the approval of a committee sale and to open the judgment of foreclosure by sale rendered in favor of the plaintiff, Rocket Mortgage, LLC. The defendants claim that the court improperly (1) misinterpreted and misapplied Practice Book § 63-1 when it concluded that no appellate stay was in effect that barred the transfer of title to the plaintiff following the approval of the sale, (2) found that the defendants had not diligently pursued a motion to set aside the approval of the sale, (3) failed to conduct an evidentiary hearing on the defendants' motion to open, and (4) determined that the motion to open was untimely as to the judgment of foreclosure by sale and, thus, that it lacked the authority to open that judgment. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the judgment of the court.")