Mobilia, Inc. v. Santos
| Decision Date | 21 May 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 2185,2185 |
| Citation | 4 Conn.App. 128,492 A.2d 544 |
| Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
| Parties | MOBILIA, INC. v. Johonor M. SANTOS et al. |
Dominick S. Piacenza, New London, for appellants (defendants).
Edward E. Moukawsher, New London, for appellee (plaintiff).
Before HULL, SPALLONE and DALY, JJ.
The plaintiff initiated this action in summary process against the defendants for nonpayment of rent. From a judgment rendered in favor of the plaintiff, after the striking of the defendants' special defenses and counterclaim, the defendants have taken this appeal.
The factual situation does not appear to be in dispute. The plaintiff entered into a written lease for one year with the named defendant for the rental of a lot in the plaintiff's mobile home park for the named defendant's mobile home. The lease commenced on August 1, 1982, and provided for a monthly rent of $170. In January of 1983, the named defendant conveyed an interest in the mobile home to the defendant Joan Tufano. The defendants then submitted a rental payment of $140, rather than the required $170. On January 26, 1983, the plaintiffs issued a notice to quit possession for nonpayment of rent of $170 due and payable on January 1, 1983.
The defendants filed an answer, two special defenses and a counterclaim. The first special defense alleged a retaliatory eviction. The second special defense disputed the amount of rent due, indicated that a complaint to the Connecticut real estate commission was pending and averred a substantial hardship to the defendants if they had to sell their mobile home. The counterclaim sought an injunction to prevent the plaintiff from proceeding against the defendants on the ground, inter alia, of discrimination in that the defendants are two unmarried and unrelated females.
The plaintiff filed a motion to strike, claiming (1) that the first special defense of retaliatory eviction was not available in a summary process action based on nonpayment of rent, (2) that the second special defense as pleaded was legally insufficient to invoke the court's equitable powers, and (3) that the counterclaim should be stricken because it was not a proper pleading in a summary process action.
The trial court granted the motion to strike the special defenses and the counterclaim and, subsequent to a hearing, rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff. The defendants have appealed, claiming that the trial court erred in granting the plaintiff's motion to strike.
"The purpose and scope of a motion to strike are identical to those of a demurrer under the old rules of practice...." Cavallo v. Derby Savings Bank, 188 Conn. 281, 283, 449 A.2d 986 (1982). Since this appeal is before us pursuant to a motion to strike, we must take the facts to be those alleged in the defendants' special defenses and counterclaim, and must construe them in the manner most favorable to the pleader. Sheets v. Teddy's Frosted Foods, Inc., 179 Conn. 471, 472, 427 A.2d 385 (1980).
There was no error in the trial court's striking the first special defense since actions for nonpayment of rent are not deemed to be retaliatory. General Statutes § 47a-20a.
The second special defense requested equitable relief against forfeiture on the basis of hardship and the forced sale of their mobile home. The counterclaim sought an injunction to restrain the plaintiff from pursuing its...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fellows v. Martin, 14055
...6 Conn.App. 373, 506 A.2d 147 (1986); 750 Main Street Associates v. Specter, 5 Conn.App. 170, 497 A.2d 96 (1985); Mobilia, Inc. v. Santos, 4 Conn.App. 128, 492 A.2d 544 (1985); Filosi v. Hawkins, 1 Conn.App. 634, 635 n. 1, 474 A.2d 1261 (1984); Southland Corporation v. Vernon, 1 Conn.App. 4......
-
VRM (Vendor Resource Management) v. Estate of Zackowski
... ... Connecticut Coalition for Justice in Education Funding, ... Inc. v. Rell , 295 Conn. 240, 252, 990 A.2d 206 (2010) ... Although ... the court ... forfeiture should be an available shield to the tenant ... Mobilia, Inc. v. Santos , 4 Conn.App. 128, 131, 492 ... A.2d 544 (1985), quoting Zitomer v. Palmer , ... ...
-
Oakland Heights Mobile Park, Inc. v. Simon, 12595
...Associates v. Spector, 5 Conn.App. 170, 171, 497 A.2d 96, cert. dismissed, 197 Conn. 815, 499 A.2d 804 (1985); Mobilia v. Santos, 4 Conn.App. 128, 130, 492 A.2d 544 (1985); Cf. Fellows v. Martin, supra, 217 Conn. at 64-65, 584 A.2d 458 (defense considered sufficiently before trial court eve......
-
In re Masterworks, Inc.
...tenant's default was intentional, the equitable considerations of anti-forfeiture are not available. See Mobilia, Inc. v. Johonor M. Santos, et al., 4 Conn.App. 128, 492 A.2d 544 (1985) ("the deliberate failure on the part of the defendants tenants to tender the agreed monthly rent . . . wo......