*********************************************** 

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. 

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 advance release version of an 

opinion and the latest version appearing in the Connecticut 

Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports 

or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest version is to 

be considered authoritative. 

The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the 

opinion as it appears 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. 

*********************************************** 
U.S. BANK, N.A., TRUSTEE v. ANTHONY R.

ARMIJO ET AL.

(AC 42254)

Elgo, Devlin and Harper, Js.

Syllabus

The plaintiff bank, U Co., sought to foreclose a mortgage on certain real

property owned by the defendants A and C. A and C were defaulted

for failure to plead and the trial court rendered a judgment of strict

foreclosure. Thereafter, the court denied C’s postjudgment motion to

dismiss, which alleged that U Co. did not have standing. The court

granted C’s motion to reargue and ordered that the motion to dismiss

be reheard. The court subsequently denied C’s motion to dismiss and

C’s motion to reargue that decision. C then filed a second motion to

dismiss for lack of standing, which the court denied, and A and C

appealed to this court. This court thereafter granted in part U Co.’s

motion to dismiss this appeal. Held that this court could not review A

and C’s challenge to the judgment from which they had appealed; A

and C failed to brief, or even mention, the trial court’s judgment denying

their second motion to dismiss, the defendants’ brief was limited to

their challenge of the court’s findings of standing and jurisdiction, which

were decided in earlier rulings from which a timely appeal was never

taken, and the defendants failed to challenge the bases on which the

court denied the second motion to dismiss, which were the law of the

case doctrine and the denial of C’s motion to reargue.

Argued November 20, 2019—officially released February 18, 2020

Procedural History

Action to foreclose a mortgage on certain real property owned by the named defendant et al., brought to

the Superior Court in the judicial district of Stamford-Norwalk, where the named defendant et al. were

defaulted for failure to plead; thereafter, the court, Hon.

David R. Tobin, judge trial referee, rendered judgment

of strict foreclosure; subsequently, the court, Lee, J.,

denied the defendant Cynthia Armijo’s motion to dismiss, and the named defendant et al. appealed to this

court; thereafter, this court granted in part the plaintiff’s

motion to dismiss the appeal. Affirmed.

Thomas W. Moyher, with whom, on the brief, was

James M. Nugent, for the appellants (named defendant

et al.).

Christopher J. Picard, for the appellee (plaintiff).
Opinion

DEVLIN, J. In this foreclosure action, the defendants

Anthony R. Armijo and Cynthia Armijo1 appeal from the

judgment of the trial court denying their postjudgment

motion to dismiss. The defendants claim on appeal that

the court erred in rejecting their claim that it lacked

jurisdiction over this action because the plaintiff, U.S.

Bank, N.A., as Trustee for Citigroup Mortgage Loan

Trust, Inc., did not have standing to bring it. We affirm

the judgment of the trial court.

The following procedural history is relevant to the

defendants’ claims on appeal. The plaintiff filed a complaint in November, 2016, to foreclose a mortgage on

certain real property owned by the defendants in Weston. The defendants, who filed appearances as selfrepresented parties, were defaulted for failure to plead,

and the court rendered a judgment of strict foreclosure

on September 25, 2017, setting a first law day of January

30, 2018.

On October 4, 2017, Cynthia Armijo filed a motion

to dismiss the action for lack of standing, in which

she argued that the original lender, Coldwell Banker

Mortgage, was not a valid legal entity. The plaintiff

objected to that motion to dismiss. While that motion

was pending, the plaintiff moved to open and extend

the law day, which the trial court granted on January

2, 2018, resetting the law day for April 3, 2018. By way

of a memorandum of decision issued on January 22,

2018, the trial court denied Cynthia Armijo’s motion to

dismiss, concluding that the plaintiff had standing to

bring this action.

On February 9, 2018, Cynthia Armijo moved to reargue her motion to dismiss. On March 7, 2018, the trial

court granted the motion to reargue, voided its January

22, 2018 decision nunc pro tunc, and ordered that the

motion to dismiss would be heard by another judge. The

parties were ordered to reclaim the motion to dismiss

to be assigned to the foreclosure short calendar. On

March 21, 2018, the plaintiff filed a caseflow request to

have the motion to dismiss written onto the March 26,

2018 short calendar. Cynthia Armijo objected to that

caseflow request, but the trial court granted the request

on March 23, 2018.2

By way of a memorandum of decision issued on June

21, 2018, the trial court concluded that the plaintiff had

standing to bring this action against the defendants and,

therefore, denied Cynthia Armijo’s motion to dismiss.

On July 26, 2018, the trial court denied Cynthia Armijo’s

July 10, 2018 motion to reargue. The defendants did

not appeal the June 21, 2018 denial of the October 4,

2017 motion to dismiss or the denial of the motion

to reargue.

On September 6, 2018, Cynthia Armijo filed another

motion to dismiss for lack of standing and lack of sub-
ject matter jurisdiction, in which she asserted the same

standing argument that she argued in her October 4,

2017 motion to dismiss. The trial court denied that second motion to dismiss on October 22, 2018. The court

did so ‘‘under the law of the case on the merits and the

motion to reargue.’’ This appeal followed.

The plaintiff moved to dismiss this appeal on the

grounds that it was moot because the law days had

passed and that the appeal was, in part, untimely. This

court granted in part the plaintiff’s motion to dismiss,

holding that the appeal was untimely as to all decisions

prior to the trial court’s order of October 22, 2018,

which denied the defendants’ September 6, 2018 motion

to dismiss.

In accordance with that ruling, the defendants properly indicated on their appeal form that they are challenging the trial court’s October 22, 2018 denial of the

September 6, 2018 motion to dismiss. The defendants,

however, failed to brief, or even mention, the trial

court’s October 22, 2018 judgment. The defendants’

brief is limited to their challenge to the trial court’s

findings of standing and jurisdiction, which were

decided in earlier rulings from which a timely appeal

was never taken. Because the defendants failed to challenge the bases on which the court denied the September 6, 2018 motion to dismiss—the law of the case

doctrine and the denial of the July 10, 2018 motion

to reargue—we cannot review their challenge to the

October 22, 2018 judgment from which they have

appealed. See Bank of New York Mellon v. Horsey, 182

Conn. App. 417, 438–39, 190 A.3d 105, cert. denied, 330

Conn. 928, 194 A.3d 1195 (2018).

The judgment is affirmed.

In this opinion the other judges concurred.

1 The complaint also named the Connecticut Housing Finance Authority

(CHFA) as a defendant. CHFA was defaulted for failure to plead, and is not

a party to this appeal. Therefore, any references herein to the defendants

are to Anthony R. Armijo and Cynthia Armijo.

2 On March 26, 2018, the defendants filed their first appeal, Docket No.

AC 41494, from the judgment of strict foreclosure, the initial denial of the

October 4, 2017 motion to dismiss, and the March 7, 2018 order on the

February 9, 2018 motion to reargue. The plaintiff filed a motion to dismiss

that appeal as moot and, in part, untimely. On May 16, 2018, this court

granted the plaintiff’s motion to dismiss the defendants’ first appeal without

prejudice to the defendants raising their claims in a subsequent appeal

following a final disposition of the motion to dismiss dated October 4, 2017,

and the resetting of the law days.