As stated in the 1991 Connecticut Appellate Court case of Scarsdale National Bank & Trust Co. v. Schmitz, "[a] party cannot be aggrieved by a decision that grants the very relief sought" and, here, although the court denied the defendant's motion to reopen a judgment of foreclosure by sale to reduce the amount of the mortgage debt, the defendant received the relief he requested and was not aggrieved by the trial court's decision. The defendant, Steven Braverman appealed from the judgment of the trial court denying his motion to reopen a judgment of foreclosure by sale rendered in favor of the substitute plaintiff, Pinpat Acquisition Corporation. On appeal the defendant claimed that his motion to reopen challenging the amount of the mortgage debt required the court to hold a hearing to test the accuracy of an affidavit it relied on to calculate the debt in the judgment of foreclosure by sale. The Appellate Court dismissed the appeal. The court reduced the amount of the mortgage debt by the exact amount challenged by the defendant in his motion to reopen. Therefore, although the court did not grant the defendant's motion to reopen and set aside the judgment, the defendant in effect received the relief he requested and did not demonstrate that he was aggrieved by the court's decision.

VIEW FULL CASE