GMAT Legal Title Trust 2014-1, U.S. Bank, National Assn. v. Catale

************************************************
The “officially released” date that appears near the
beginning of an opinion is the date the opinion will be
published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it
is released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the
beginning of all time periods for the filing of postopin-
ion motions and petitions for certification is the “offi-
cially released” date appearing in the opinion.
All opinions are subject to modification and technical
correction prior to official publication in the Connecti-
cut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut
Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event
of discrepancies between the advance release version of
an opinion and the version appearing in the Connecti-
cut 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
an opinion that appear in the Connecticut Law Jour-
nal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or
Connecticut Appellate Reports are copyrighted by the
Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may
not be reproduced or distributed without the express
written permission of the Commission on Official Legal
Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut.
************************************************
Page 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL 0, 0

2 ,0 0 Conn. App. 1
GMAT Legal Title Trust 2014-1, U.S. Bank, National Assn. v. Catale

GMAT LEGAL TITLE TRUST 2014-1, U.S. BANK
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION v.
VITO CATALE ET AL.
(AC 47320)
Bright, C. J., and Moll and Clark, Js.

Syllabus

The defendant homeowners appealed following the trial court’s granting of
a motion filed by the substitute plaintiff, R Co., to reset the law days in
accordance with this court’s remand order in the defendants’ previous
appeal, in which this court had affirmed a judgment of strict foreclosure
for R Co. The defendants objected to the motion to reset the law days,
claiming that R Co. had not timely filed a new appraisal report or an updated
foreclosure worksheet. Held:

This court summarily reversed the trial court’s judgment resetting the law
day and remanded the case to that court to make updated findings as to
the amount of the debt and the fair market value of the property, and to
set new law days or a sale date pursuant to Wahba v. JPMorgan Chase
Bank, N.A. (349 Conn. 483).
Considered November 26—officially released December 17, 2024

Procedural History

Action to foreclose a mortgage on certain real prop-
erty owned by the named defendant et al., and for other
relief, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial dis-
trict of Fairfield, where the court, Spader, J., granted
the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment as to liabil-
ity only; thereafter, RMS Series Trust 2020-1 was substi-
tuted as the plaintiff; subsequently, the court, Hon. Dale
W. Radcliffe, judge trial referee, granted the substitute
plaintiff’s motion for judgment of strict foreclosure and
rendered judgment thereon, from which the named
defendant et al. appealed to this court, Alvord, Clark
and DiPentima, Js., which reversed the judgment in
part and remanded the case for further proceedings;
thereafter, the court, Cirello, J., rendered judgment of
strict foreclosure; subsequently, the Supreme Court
denied the petition for certification to appeal filed by
0, 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 1

0 Conn. App. 1 ,0 3
GMAT Legal Title Trust 2014-1, U.S. Bank, National Assn. v. Catale

the named defendant et al.; thereafter, the court, Cirello,
J., granted the substitute plaintiff’s motion to reset the
law days, and the named defendant et al. appealed to
this court. Reversed; further proceedings.
Paul N. Gilmore, in support of the motion.
Douglas R. Steinmetz, in opposition to the motion.
Opinion

PER CURIAM. This case returns to us following the
remand ordered in GMAT Legal Title Trust 2014-1,
U.S. Bank, National Assn. v. Catale, 221 Conn. App.
90, 300 A.3d 1218, cert. denied, 348 Conn. 928, 305 A.3d
265 (2023), in which this court, inter alia, affirmed the
trial court’s judgment of strict foreclosure and
remanded the case to that court for the purpose of
setting new law days. See id., 113. Upon remand, on
December 21, 2023, the substitute plaintiff, RMS Series
Trust 2020-1,1 filed a motion to reset the law days. On
January 8, 2024, the defendants Vito Catale and Maria
Catale2 objected to the motion to reset the law days,
arguing that the plaintiff had not filed a new appraisal
report within 120 days of the new judgment or an
updated foreclosure worksheet. On January 8, 2024, the
trial court granted the plaintiff’s motion—after
‘‘reviewing the plaintiff’s motion, the court file and
[there being] no objection thereto’’—and set the law
days to commence on February 6, 2024. On January 12,
2024, the defendants filed a motion to reargue,
requesting that the court reconsider its decision
because the language in the order indicating that there
1
On August 4, 2021, RMS Series Trust 2020-1 filed a motion to substitute
itself for the original plaintiff, GMAT Legal Title Trust 2014-1, U.S. Bank
National Association, as Legal Title Trustee, after the subject note and
mortgage were assigned to it. The trial court granted the motion to substitute
on August 23, 2021. Accordingly, all references to the plaintiff in this order
are to RMS Series Trust 2020-1.
2
Because Vito Catale and Maria Catale are the only defendants appealing,
we refer to them as the defendants.
Page 2 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL 0, 0

4 ,0 0 Conn. App. 1
GMAT Legal Title Trust 2014-1, U.S. Bank, National Assn. v. Catale

was ‘‘no objection thereto’’ was incorrect. The plaintiff
filed an objection; the defendants’ reply and the plain-
tiff’s surreply followed. On January 26, 2024, the court
denied the motion to reargue, quoting this court’s
remand order; see GMAT Legal Title Trust 2014-1, U.S.
Bank, National Assn. v. Catale, supra, 113; and stating
that ‘‘[t]he only issue before the court was to reset the
law day, which it did.’’ This appeal followed.
On July 17, 2024, this court ordered, sua sponte, the
parties to file memoranda addressing ‘‘whether the Jan-
uary 8, 2024 judgment resetting the law day should
be summarily reversed and the case remanded for the
purpose of making new findings as to the amount of
the debt and the fair market value of the property, for
the setting of new law days or a sale date, and for other
proceedings according to law pursuant to Wahba v.
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 349 Conn. 483, [316 A.3d
338] (2024).’’ The parties subsequently filed memoranda
in accordance with our order. Although the parties
agree that the case must be remanded, they disagree
as to the parameters of the remand.
In Wahba v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., supra, 349
Conn. 483, our Supreme Court concluded: ‘‘[A] judg-
ment of strict foreclosure is uniquely susceptible to
becoming ineffective and stale over the course of time.
Law days pass, the amount of the debt changes, and
the property’s value fluctuates. It is also axiomatic that
foreclosure is peculiarly an equitable action . . . .
Thus, when an appellate court has affirmed a judgment
of strict foreclosure and remanded the case to the trial
court with direction to set new law days—perhaps years
after the original judgment—we deem it necessary,
unless expressly prohibited for some reason by the
reviewing court’s remand order, for the trial court to
make a new finding as to the amount of the debt so
that the parties know what the mortgagor must pay to
redeem the property. . . . That being the case, we see
0, 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 3

0 Conn. App. 1 ,0 5
GMAT Legal Title Trust 2014-1, U.S. Bank, National Assn. v. Catale

no reason why, if the mortgagor makes an adequate
proffer, equity would not also demand that the court
determine the property’s current value so that the court
knows whether a strict foreclosure would result in
potential windfall to the mortgagee. And, if a windfall
to the mortgagee would result, we also see no reason
why, in an appropriate case, equity would not demand
that the court exercise its discretion and determine
whether to modify the form of the judgment and to
order a foreclosure by sale.’’ (Citations omitted; internal
quotation marks omitted.) Id., 498–99.
Applying these principles to the present action, we
summarily reverse the January 8, 2024 judgment reset-
ting the law day and remand the case for further pro-
ceedings pursuant to Wahba v. JPMorgan Chase Bank,
N.A., supra, 349 Conn. 483, and in accordance with the
rescript herein.
The January 8, 2024 judgment resetting the law day
is summarily reversed and the case is remanded for the
purpose of making updated findings as to the amount
of the debt and the fair market value of the property,
to set new law days or a sale date, and for other proceed-
ings according to law pursuant to Wahba v. JPMorgan
Chase Bank, N.A., supra, 349 Conn. 483; the indebted-
ness established in the initial judgment of strict foreclo-
sure shall be treated as proven and established and any
calculations changing the amount of the debt shall be
based solely on additional debt incurred or payments
made by the defendants after the initial judgment.