A Connecticut appeals court has ruled that a lender’s execution of ejectment was premature - because title never legally vested due to an unresolved appellate stay
The Connecticut Appellate Court has reversed a trial court’s order granting execution of ejectment in a foreclosure dispute involving US Bank, ruling that an automatic appellate stay remained in effect and prevented title from vesting. The decision highlights procedural safeguards that can significantly impact foreclosure timelines, particularly when multiple appeals are involved.
The case, US Bank Trust, N.A., Trustee v. Mark E. O’Brien et al., originated in 2016 when US Bank Trust, N.A., as Trustee for LSF9 Master Participation Trust, filed an action to foreclose a mortgage on residential property in Winsted, Connecticut. The mortgagor, Caroline S. O’Brien, had passed away, and the property was inherited by her heirs, including defendant Mark E. O’Brien.
After O’Brien filed a response and counterclaim - which the court later dismissed - judgment of strict foreclosure entered in 2019. O’Brien appealed, and the Connecticut Appellate Court affirmed the judgment in 2020 but remanded the matter for new law days to be set, as the prior law days had lapsed during the appeal.
In 2022, the trial court substituted US Bank, National Association, as Legal Title Trustee for Truman 2016 SC6 Title Trust as the plaintiff. Law days were then reset for June 6, 2022. O’Brien moved to open the judgment, and although the motion was denied, the court extended the law days to June 27, 2022, to allow for the appeal period.
O’Brien filed his second appeal on June 22, 2022, triggering an automatic appellate stay. The substitute plaintiff moved to terminate the existing appellate stay and to terminate any future appellate stays as well. On August 1, 2022, the trial court granted the motion, stating only that the stay was terminated “in this case.” The order lacked any express language addressing future stays. Neither party sought clarification.
The Appellate Court later dismissed the second appeal as frivolous.
Following the dismissal, the trial court reset law days for May 1, 2023. On March 23, 2023, O’Brien filed a third appeal—again triggering an automatic stay under Practice Book § 61-11. Nonetheless, the trial court, in February 2024, granted the substitute plaintiff’s motion for execution of ejectment, reasoning that title had vested when the May 1, 2023 law days passed.
O’Brien objected, asserting that his third appeal had stayed the judgment and that the law days were ineffective. The trial court disagreed and issued the execution of ejectment, staying enforcement only until May 1, 2024.
On review, the Connecticut Appellate Court sided with O’Brien. It held that the trial court’s August 1, 2022 order was ambiguous and did not clearly terminate future appellate stays. Because a timely third appeal was filed, the law days set for May 1, 2023 passed without legal effect. As a result, title had not vested, and the execution of ejectment was premature.
The court emphasized that the termination of automatic appellate stays - especially in strict foreclosure cases—must be expressed with “unequivocal language.” The ruling cautioned that ambiguity should be resolved in favor of the default rule: the filing of an appeal triggers a stay unless explicitly terminated.
The case was remanded with direction to vacate the execution of ejectment and set new law days.
For mortgage servicers and legal teams, the decision serves as a critical reminder that procedural missteps in appellate stay management can upend finality in foreclosure proceedings - even after multiple appeals and extended litigation.
Case Name: US Bank Trust, N.A., Trustee v. Mark E. O’Brien et al.
Decision Date: April 1, 2025
Case Number: AC 47391
Court: Connecticut Appellate Court
