Court Opinion

ID: 9901319
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-21 17:03:23.569376+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:30.839647
License: Public Domain

***********************************************
    The “officially released” date that appears near the be-
ginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be pub-
lished in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was
released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the be-
ginning 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 Publica-
tions, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut.
***********************************************
          U.S. BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,
           CUSTODIAN v. PAUL ROSE ET AL.
                      (AC 46007)
                   Bright, C. J., and Moll and Seeley, Js.

                                   Syllabus

In an action to foreclose a mortgage on certain real property owned by the
    named defendant, who died subsequent to the commencement of the
    foreclosure action, the estate of the named defendant was cited in as
    a party, and service was made on the named defendant’s son, R, in his
    capacity as executor of the estate of the named defendant. R then filed
    an appearance as executor of the estate of his father in a self-represented
    capacity. The plaintiff filed a motion to strike R’s appearance on behalf
    of the estate on the ground that an estate may not be represented by
    a nonlawyer individual, which the trial court granted. The trial court
    denied R’s motions to intervene and to open the judgment. On R’s appeal
    to this court, he asserted that, because he was the sole beneficiary of
    his father’s estate, he had a substantial interest in the foreclosure matter
    and should have been made a party thereto. Held that, pursuant to this
    court’s decision in Ellis v. Cohen (118 Conn. App. 211) and for the
    reasons stated therein, the appeal was dismissed.
 Submitted on briefs October 16—officially released November 21, 2023

                             Procedural History

   Action to foreclose a mortgage, brought to the Supe-
rior Court in the judicial district of New Haven, where
the court, Cirello, J., denied the motions filed by Rah-
man Rose to open the judgment and to intervene and
granted the plaintiff’s motion to strike Rahman Rose’s
appearance, from which Rahman Rose appealed to this
court. Appeal dismissed.
  Rahman Rose, self-represented, the appellant, filed
a brief (proposed intervenor).
                                Opinion

   PER CURIAM. Rahman Rose, the proposed interve-
nor in this action to foreclose a mortgage on certain
real property owned by his father, the defendant Paul
Rose,1 who died subsequent to the commencement of
the foreclosure action, filed this appeal in a self-repre-
sented capacity challenging various rulings of the trial
court, including its denial of his motion to open the
foreclosure judgment to extend the sale date, its grant-
ing of the motion of the plaintiff, U.S. Bank, National
Association, as custodian for Tower DBW IV Trust 2014-
1, to strike an appearance that Rahman Rose filed to
appear on behalf of the estate of Paul Rose, and its
denial of his motion to intervene. On appeal, he asserts
that, because he is the sole beneficiary of his father’s
estate, he has a substantial interest in the foreclosure
matter and should have been made a party thereto. We
dismiss the appeal.
   We briefly set forth the following relevant procedural
history. After the commencement of the foreclosure
action, the trial court rendered a judgment of foreclo-
sure by sale, which was opened several times to extend
the sale date. Thereafter, Paul Rose died, and his coun-
sel withdrew her appearance in this matter. The trial
court subsequently granted the plaintiff’s motion to cite
in as a party the estate of Paul Rose, and service was
made on Rahman Rose, in his capacity as executor of
the estate of Paul Rose. Rahman Rose, a nonlawyer,
then filed an appearance on behalf of the estate, and
the plaintiff filed a motion to strike that appearance on
the ground that an estate may not be represented by a
nonlawyer individual in a self-represented capacity. The
trial court granted the plaintiff’s motion to strike the
appearance and denied Rahman Rose’s motions to open
the judgment and to intervene, and this appeal followed.
We conclude that this appeal is governed by this court’s
prior decision in Ellis v. Cohen, 118 Conn. App. 211,
982 A.2d 1130 (2009), and, for the reasons stated therein,
this appeal must be dismissed.
      The appeal is dismissed.
  1
  This foreclosure action was brought against a number of other defendants
who are not relevant to or involved in this appeal.