Case Name: U.S. BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Trustee v. Moses NELSON et al.
Court: Connecticut Appellate Court
Jurisdiction: Connecticut
Decision Date: 2017-05-09
Citations: 161 A.3d 1290
Docket Number: AC 38638
Parties: U.S. BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Trustee
v.
Moses NELSON et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Atlantic Reporter, Third Series
Volume: 161
Pages: 1290–1290

Head Matter:
U.S. BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Trustee
v.
Moses NELSON et al.
AC 38638
Appellate Court of Connecticut.
Argued March 21, 2017
Officially released May 9, 2017
Moses Nelson, self-represented, the appellant (named defendant).
David M. Bizar, for the appellee (plaintiff).
DiPentima, C. J., and Sheldon and Blue, Js.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The self-represented defendant Moses Nelson appeals from the denial of his motion to dismiss the underlying strict foreclosure judgment rendered by the trial court in favor of the plaintiff, U.S. Bank, National Association, as Trustee for Bank of America Funding Corporation 2007-1. On appeal, the defendant makes a variety of claims challenging the court's rulings on his motion to open the judgment of strict foreclosure and motion to dismiss the underlying strict foreclosure action.
After reviewing and considering the record in this case, the briefs and the arguments of the parties on appeal, we conclude that the court properly denied the defendant's motion to open because once the law day passed the title of the property vested in the plaintiff and not the defendant. See Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Pardo , 170 Conn.App. 642, 652, 155 A.3d 764 (2017) ("[a] critical factor to be recognized in connection with a motion to reopen a judgment of strict foreclosure is that the motion must be heard, and not merely filed, prior to the vesting of title" [internal quotation marks omitted] ). We also conclude that the defendant's challenge to the court's denial of his motion to dismiss based on the plaintiff's standing lacks merit.
The judgment is affirmed.
PNC Bank, National Association, was also named as a defendant but is not involved in this appeal. Our references to the defendant are to Nelson.
To the extent that the defendant has challenged the authority of the plaintiff to transact business in Connecticut, we note that his answer to the complaint did not raise that issue as required under Practice Book § 10-46.