193 Conn.App. 137
Conn. App. Ct.2019Background
- Plaintiffs (Boccanfuso Bros., Inc. and Dominick & Crescienzo Boccanfuso) owned commercial premises formerly used for auto repair; underground gasoline and waste-oil tanks were removed in 2013 without following required protocols, producing contamination.
- Parties executed a five-year lease (Nov. 22, 2013) for the premises; rent commencement was set effectively July 1, 2014 after a short abatement; defendants intended to operate a rug gallery and a Subway franchise and performed renovations.
- On July 1, 2014 the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP) issued an enforcement order; plaintiffs later entered a stipulated judgment in the DEEP action and remediated the site at their expense.
- Defendants stopped paying rent beginning December 2014 (after advice of counsel and citing contamination concerns, alleged concealment, and renovation delays tied to the plaintiffs’ agent/consultant), and plaintiffs brought summary process seeking possession.
- Trial court found defendants breached by wilful nonpayment, rejected special defenses (including equitable nonforfeiture, unjust enrichment, and breach of the implied covenant), denied a continuance to call a DEEP officer, and entered judgment for possession; the Appellate Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Boccanfuso (Plaintiffs) Argument | Daghoghi (Defendants) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether trial court applied correct legal standard for equitable nonforfeiture | Court applied Fellows three‑part equitable nonforfeiture test and required tenant to prove each element | Withholding rent was non‑wilful and in good faith (advice of counsel; contamination concealed; renovation delays) | Affirmed: court properly applied test and reasonably found defendants’ nonpayment was wilful/grossly negligent; thus defense fails (no need to reach other prongs). |
| 2. Whether plaintiffs knew of contamination before July 1, 2014 | Plaintiffs argued they did not know contamination exceeded action levels and, in any event, remediated promptly under lease | Defendants argued plaintiffs concealed pre‑lease contamination, justifying rent withholding and supporting breach/good‑faith defenses | Affirmed: record supports trial court finding parties were unaware of contamination above action levels before July 1, 2014; even if error, harmless because plaintiffs remediated and contamination did not impede renovations. |
| 3. Whether court abused discretion in rejecting unjust enrichment / implied covenant defenses | Plaintiffs argued no contractual basis to hold them responsible for consultant’s delays; defendants contractually responsible for renovations | Defendants argued plaintiffs (through agent) unjustly required rent while delays prevented occupancy, breaching implied covenant | Not reviewed on merits: defendants’ briefing inadequate (single paragraph, no authorities, no distinct analysis), so claim abandoned. |
| 4. Whether denying continuance to call DEEP enforcement officer was an abuse of discretion | Plaintiffs argued denial was reasonable given docketing, lack of timely proffer, and no showing of prejudice | Defendants argued officer’s testimony and DEEP records were critical and exclusion prejudiced them | Affirmed: denial not an abuse (late, no proffer, no capias sought); even if erroneous, any error was harmless because contamination issue was treated as pretextual and defendants showed no prejudice. |
Key Cases Cited
- Fellows v. Martin, 217 Conn. 57 (Conn. 1991) (establishes three‑part equitable nonforfeiture test and clean‑hands limitation)
- Cumberland Farms, Inc. v. Dairy Mart, Inc., 225 Conn. 771 (Conn. 1993) (discusses application of equitable nonforfeiture in lease nonpayment cases)
- BNY Western Trust v. Roman, 295 Conn. 194 (Conn. 2010) (addresses appellate review scope when conjunctive equitable test is applied)
- Saunders v. Firtel, 293 Conn. 515 (Conn. 2009) (explains that wilful conduct is a question of fact and defines “wilful” conduct)
- Lynwood Place, LLC v. Sandy Hook Hydro, LLC, 150 Conn. App. 682 (Conn. App. 2014) (reiterates burden on tenant/defendant to prove equitable defenses in summary process)