court.3 In
the motion, which was opposed by the plaintiffs, the
defendants raised claims of lack of standing and fraud.
Specifically, the defendants alleged that Shara Rocco
falsely had represented to the court that, during the
pendency of the litigation, she was the record owner
of the subject property despite the fact that, on March
14, 2016, she transferred all of her interest in the prop-
erty to a trust. The defendants contended that Shara
Rocco committed fraud by her false representations
and that the plaintiffs lacked standing once Shara Rocco
transferred her interest in the subject property to her-
self as trustee of the trust. The plaintiffs opposed the
motion and submitted an affidavit from Shara Rocco
in which she averred in relevant part that she had exe-
cuted the transfer purely on the basis of advice from
an estate planning attorney andof standing. In their first claim on
appeal, the defendants argue that because Shara Rocco
transferred her interest in the subject property before
the court rendered judgment, the plaintiffs had no
standing to maintain their causes of action.
   The defendants argue in relevant part: ‘‘Prior to the
entry of default against the defendants, trial in damages,
and for many months after entry of judgment, until its
discovery by defense counsel, the plaintiffs withheld
the fact that [the] plaintiff Shara Rocco executed a
quitclaim deed in March, 2016, transferring all interest
in the [subject] property to a living trust. The plaintiffs
did not record the deed in the Berlin land records until
after the July 20, 2016 trial, and just before judgment
entered in September, 2016. Shara Rocco falsely stated
under oath at the trial and in an affidavit that she