Opinion
No. 34602.
2014-05-6
CONNECTICUT HOUSING FINANCE AUTHORITY v. Herbert MUHAMMAD et al.
Appeal from Superior Court, Judicial District of Hartford, Scholl, J. [summary judgment motion]; Robaina, J. [foreclosure judgment]; Wahla, J. [approval of committee sale, deed, report]. J. Hanson Guest, Stamford, with whom, on the brief, was Megan L. Piltz, Newington, for the appellant (named defendant). Kevin J. Burns, West Hartford, for the appellee (plaintiff).
Appeal from Superior Court, Judicial District of Hartford, Scholl, J. [summary judgment motion]; Robaina, J. [foreclosure judgment]; Wahla, J. [approval of committee sale, deed, report].
J. Hanson Guest, Stamford, with whom, on the brief, was Megan L. Piltz, Newington, for the appellant (named defendant). Kevin J. Burns, West Hartford, for the appellee (plaintiff).
LAVINE, BEAR and KELLER, Js.
PER CURIAM.
The listing of judges reflects their seniority status on this court as of the date of oral argument.
The defendant Herbert Muhammad appeals from the judgment of foreclosure by sale, rendered by the trial court, in favor of the plaintiff, the Connecticut Housing Finance Authority. Shortly after this appeal was argued in the Appellate Court, the trial court, on February 3, 2014, issued an order approving the committee sale, deed and report. The defendant did not appeal from that order, and the time has expired for him to do so. On March 18, 2014, we issued an order, sua sponte, requiring the parties to file simultaneous supplemental briefs addressing the following question: “In light of the trial court's February 3, 2014 order approving the committee sale/deed/report, and no appeal having been taken therefrom, why is the appeal in AC 34602 not moot?” The plaintiff filed its brief arguing that the appeal is moot because no relief could be afforded to the defendant. The defendant has not filed a supplemental brief or any other response to our order. We conclude that the appeal is moot and, thus, should be dismissed.
The United States Secretary of Housing and Urban Development also is a defendant in this case and appears in this appeal as an appellee. For convenience, we refer only to Muhammad as the defendant.
The appeal is dismissed.