Opinion
No. LLICV18-10101
August 31, 2005
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE MOTION TO STRIKE
Plaintiff has brought a summary process action seeking to evict the defendant for nonpayment of rent. Defendant filed a responsive pleading alleging various special defenses, and a four-count counterclaim. The first count alleges a tortious breach of contract, the second count alleges vexatious litigation, the third count asks for specific performance of the lease agreement, and the fourth count alleges an unfair trade practice claim under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act ("CUTPA"). The defendant seeks compensatory damages under counts one, two and four of its counterclaim.
The plaintiff has filed a motion to strike counts one, two and four of the counterclaim along with paragraphs three, four and five of the prayer for relief. The prayer for relief asks for compensatory damages, as well as treble damages under General Statutes §§ 52-568 and 42-110a et. seq. At the hearing on the motion to strike, the defendant withdrew the second count of the counterclaim alleging a vexatious suit, thereby leaving the motion applicable only to counts one and four.
In considering a motion to strike the court must accept as true all well pleaded facts. Peter Michael, Inc. v. Sea Shell Associates, 244 Conn. 269, 270 (1998); Commissioner of Labor v. C.J.M. Services, Inc., 268 Conn. 283 (2004). The court is not required to make factual findings. Vacco v. Microsoft, 260 Conn. 59, 65 (2002). All allegations are to be construed in the light most favorable to the pleader. Suffield Development CT Page 11768-kx Associates Limited Partnership v. National Loan Investors, L.P., 260 Conn. 766, 772 (2002). Generally, in considering a motion to strike the court is limited to the grounds specified in the motion and cannot consider unspecified grounds. Meredith v. Police Commission, 182 Conn. 138, 140-41 (1980). As a result, this court will consider only the grounds set forth in the plaintiff's motion.
Under the Landlord and Tenant Act, Chapter 832 of the General Statutes §§ 47a-23 through 47a-42a, a landlord may seek possession of property leased to a tenant for nonpayment of rent. Such remedy is statutory. A tenant may present any affirmative defenses that may be available. See for example, §§ 47a-33 and 47a-33a. However, the nature of a summary process proceeding under the Act is one for possession and any responsive pleading must be related to the issue of possession or occupancy. "A counterclaim that seeks relief in the form of compensatory and punitive damages is not permitted in a summary process action because prayers for monetary relief do not implicate the right to possession." Fellows v. Martin, 223 Conn. 152, 154 (1992). Goodhall's, Inc. v. Dave Caron Chrysler, Superior Court judicial district of Tolland at Rockville, Docket No. CV00-0072639, (June 1, 2000, Sullivan, J.) ( 27 Conn. L. Rptr. 290). Here, plaintiff has not alleged any claim for damages as it is not authorized to do so under the statutory remedy provided for gaining possession of the premises. As a result, the responsive pleading filed by the defendant seeking monetary damages would be inappropriate. "Complaints and counterclaims seeking money damages are not permitted in summary process lawsuits, either tenant against landlord or landlord against tenant." Atlantic Refining Co. v. O'Keefe, 131 Conn. 528, 531 (1945); Curnan v. Newton, Superior Court, judicial district of Litchfield, Docket No. 185916 (August 15, 1997, Pickett, J.) ( 20 Conn. L. Rptr. 317) Such claims have been stricken by our courts in the past and this court will not deviate from that precedent. In the recent matter of Trinity United Methodist Church of Springfield, Massachusetts v. Levesque et al., 88 Conn.App. 661, 673 (2005) the Appellate Court addressed the issue of having legal and equitable issues tried in a single action in the context CT Page 11768-ky of a summary process action. In that matter, the Court noted that in making a determination as to whether both claims in equity and at law could be considered in a summary process action, the pleadings should be read as a whole. In reading the pleadings as a whole in the instant matter, it is clear the defendant should not be allowed to pursue those claims set forth by him in counts one and four of his counterclaim. The allegations do not sufficiently implicate the defendant's right of possession to allow the counterclaim to be heard as part of the summary process action. The defendant can pursue a separate action for damages in Superior Court outside the statutory framework of a summary process action if he so chooses. He will not be prejudiced by not being able to proceed with his counterclaims for monetary damages in the summary process action as he has other adequate avenues of recourse available to him.
For the foregoing reasons the motion to strike the first and fourth count of the defendant's counterclaim is granted. In light of the foregoing, it is further ordered that paragraphs three, four and five of the prayer for relief claiming damages also be stricken.
BY THE COURT
Shaban, J. CT Page 11768-lz