By James AR Pocklington, Esq

McCalla Raymer Leibert Pierce, LLP *

USFN Member (AL, CA, CT, FL, GA, IL, KY, MS, NV, NJ, NY, OH, OR, PA, TX, WA)

              The Connecticut Appellate Court recently issued its long-awaited decision in U.S. Bank N.A. v. Israel Melcon, et al (234 Conn. App. 667). The factual situation giving rise to Melcon was an issue of first impression for the Connecticut courts and had the possibility to redefine Connecticut foreclosure judgment procedure. 

              As the reader may be aware, under Connecticut’s Strict Foreclosure process, the court enters a judgment, selects dates that act as the last chance of a borrower and subsequent encumbrancers to resolve the action (called the Law Day or Law Days), and title vests automatically in the foreclosing Plaintiff the following business day. Significant litigation has occurred over the years regarding this process and various court rules, particularly timelines to appeal either the foreclosure judgment or court action on later requests to postpone a vesting. 

This gave rise to what is now known as the “three-strike-rule,” which provides that after denial of two extension requests, there is no further appeal periods without specific action by the movant. In practice, this leads courts to automatically extend a vesting, even on the denial of the first and second motion, as title cannot vest during an appeal period. 

Melcon asked the question “What happens when the court doesn’t?”

              In Melcon, judgment entered on August 29, 2022, with title to vest May 3, 2023 (after various delays). On May 1, 2023, defendants moved to extend, which the court denied that day; without extending the Law Days or issuing an articulation explaining its reasoning. After subsequent motion practice, the trial court took the position that the Law Days were tolled, and that while title did not vest on May 3, 2023, due to the appeal period from the denial, it later vested on May 24, 2023. In so doing, the trial court attempted to create a new way of handling denied Motions and to not need to specify the new Law Days. The trial court felt that, under a tolling theory, title had vested absolutely, that it was stripped of jurisdiction, and defendants had no further recourse. They appealed.

              The Appellate Court ordered further articulation from the trial court, which laid out the trial court’s novel tolling theory. Argument was held on January 15, 2025. Over the following eight months, the Appellate Court occasionally dropped the briefest mention in other decisions, using the word tolling (which to this point, was not part of Connecticut foreclosure jargon). Ultimately the decision was released on August 26, 2025, and the trial court was found to have erred.

              Central to the Appellate Court decision was the concept of notice. The Appellate Court was challenged by the idea of an automatic tolling resulting in parties, especially unsophisticated homeowners, not knowing the exact date of their Law Day and when vesting would occur. The Appellate Court left open the door for the possibility of later changes to the rules that permitted automatic reset with a footnote that “We observe that the Rules Committee of the Superior Court remains free to amend the text of the relevant rules as it deems appropriate” but focused most of its attention on the equitable nature of foreclosures and the need to ensure notice and transparency.

              Ultimately, the Appellate Court landed on the soundbite that “We cannot endorse any result that permits a law day to pass silently” and remanded the matter to the trial court for further proceedings. While this effectively killed the tolling theory as used by the trial court, it asked important procedural questions that will likely find foothold in other cases in the future.

              From a Connecticut practitioner perspective, the reliance on proper notice as the tipping point for the Appellate Court cannot be understated. For those trial courts that separate action on the motion and the new Law Days, or those courts where the notice of the new dates are delayed, Melcon presents a chilling warning. For those attorneys who see a judge deny a postponement request and choose not to set new dates, Melcon is a call to action to have a date set as soon as possible, and proper notice sent.

Copyright © 2025 USFN

USFNews - Dec. 17, 2025

* Denotes firm is a 2024 USFN Award of Excellence recipient