Washington Mutual Bank, F.A. v. Walpuck
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
****************************************************** The officially released date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the officially released date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the officially released date. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ****************************************************** WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK, F.A. v. ROBERT J. WALPUCK ET AL. (AC 33146) Beach, Sheldon and Bishop, Js. Argued January 18 officially released March 27, 2012 (Appeal from Superior Court, judicial district of Stamford-Norwalk, Jennings, J. [judgment]; Mintz, J. [motion to open].) Robert J. Walpuck, pro se, the appellant (named defendant). S. Bruce Fair, for the appellee (plaintiff). Opinion PER CURIAM. In this foreclosure action the defendant Robert J. Walpuck1 appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying his motion to open the confirmation of the sale of the foreclosed property. The defendant claims that the plaintiff, Washington Mutual Bank, F.A., did not have standing to take title to the property because, having been acquired by JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., prior to the court s approval of the sale, the plaintiff did not exist at that time.2 As the trial court held, this court s opinion in Dime Savings Bank of Wallingford v. Arpaia, 55 Conn. App. 180, 738 A.2d 715 (1999), is dispositive of the defendant s claim. In that case, this court held that an assignee has the option to pursue litigation in its own name or in the name of its assignor. Id., 184. Accordingly, the defendant s claim must fail. The judgment is affirmed. 1 Servco Oil Company, Lockwood Sterling & Betts, LLC, Angelo DeCaro, and ADC-27 Indian Valley Road, LLC, also are defendants in this matter. Because they are not parties to this appeal, we refer in this opinion to Walpuck as the defendant. 2 The defendant also claims that the four month limitation for opening a judgment prescribed by General Statutes ยง 52-212a does not apply when a motion to open is directed to the confirmation of a foreclosure sale rather than the underlying judgment of foreclosure. Because we address the defendant s claim on its merits, we need not address this claim.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
