Opinion
No. CV 05-4011599
July 28, 2005
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE MOTION TO STRIKE
The defendant has filed a motion to strike counts one and three of the plaintiff's complaint. As to count one, the defendant claims that it purports to set forth an unrecognized cause of action for common-law waste against a life estate. As to count three, the defendant alleges that the plaintiff has failed to set forth sufficient facts for quiet title action under Connecticut General Statutes § 47-31(b) and that the plaintiff improperly brought a quiet title action based on allegations of waste, not disputed ownership interest.
The plaintiff in the above matter brought a three-count complaint against the defendant alleging that the plaintiff's remainder interest in property known as 31-39 Depot Place, Unionville, Connecticut (hereinafter "Premises") was the subject of waste during the defendant's life interest. The plaintiff alleges that the defendant is responsible for costs of upkeep, repair and taxes on the premises and that the defendant has injured the premises by causing the buildings to come into disrepair and allowing them to become unsanitary, thereby diminishing the market value of same.
The first count of the complaint purports to set forth a cause of action for common-law waste. The second count claims a cause of action for statutory waste pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-563. The third count purports to set forth a cause of action to quiet title based on the same allegations as counts one and two, i.e., allowing the premises to come into disrepair and thereby causing damages to the plaintiff's remainder interest.
The defendant also seeks to strike the plaintiff's prayer for relief seeking termination of the defendant's life estate, rental payments, interest, and costs because there are no such remedies available in an action for waste under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-563. CT Page 11090-ht
With respect to the first count, there is no common-law action for waste of a life estate in Connecticut. There was no such common-law remedy prior to 1840. Town of Madison v. Rice, 24 Conn. 350, 357 (1856). Since 1840, Section 52-563 and its predecessors have governed actions for waste. See Zauner v. Brewer, 220 Conn. 176, 189 (1991). In the opinion of this court, Section 52-563 of the Conn. Gen. Stat. is the sole and exclusive remedy for waste against a life tenant in Connecticut. Accordingly, the court finds that count one of the plaintiff's complaint is stricken.
With respect to the third count, the essential allegations are the waste of the life estate not allegations of conflicting ownership interest. The purpose of the quiet title action is to determine title not to determine whether a party is committing waste. A quiet title action is properly brought under Section 47-31(b) of the Connecticut General Statutes. As stated above, an action for waste of a life estate is properly brought under 52-563.
Section 47-31(b) states in relevant part that "the complaint in such action shall describe the property in question and state the plaintiff's claim, interest or title and the manner in which the plaintiff acquired the claim, interest or title and shall name the person or persons who may claim the adverse estate or interest." As noted by the defendant quoting from Lowenberg v. Wallace, 147 Conn. 689, 692 (1960), the purpose of this section is "to make certain that a plaintiff has, within the purview of the allegations of this complaint, not a mere groundless claim but an actual interest in the property sufficient to justify his instituting an action concerning it and asking the court to adjudicate his rights and those of the party defendant. Unless the plaintiff has such an interest, he obviously has no right to maintain an action under the statute." If a plaintiff fails to set forth sufficiently in his complaint required facts under the statute, the complaint is subject to a motion to strike. Id. at 154.
Count three fails to set forth a statement of the manner of which the plaintiff acquired the interest or title in the premises and also no statement of any claim by the defendant or any other party that is an adverse interest to the plaintiff's remainder interest. There is no adversity between the ownership interests in this property. There was no statement in count three of any adverse claim or any basis for such. In the opinion of this court, the plaintiff's complaint failed to set forth sufficient facts for a quiet title action and count three is herewith stricken.
With respect to the prayer for relief seeking a declaratory judgment CT Page 11090-hu and that all rents from the premises be paid to the plaintiff, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-563 governs the relief available to the plaintiff. This relief does not include a declaratory judgment for rental payments. As recognized by the Zauner court, the plaintiff's remedy is for money damages and only to the extent of the waste committed, or an injunction concerning the waste. 220 Conn. at 187 and 190. Accordingly, the motion to strike the prayer for relief as indicated is granted. The same is true with respect to the prayer for relief for interest and costs because there is no basis under Connecticut law for such relief; Section 52-563 being the sole statutory basis for recovering for waste to a life estate. Thus, these prayers for relief are also stricken.
BY THE COURT
Hale, JTR CT Page 11090-hv