Boccanfuso v. Daghoghi
SC20397
| Conn. | Jul 20, 2021Background
- Landlord (plaintiffs) leased former auto‐repair property to tenants (defendants) for retail rug gallery and Subway; lease made tenants responsible for renovations and costs but made plaintiffs responsible for any environmental issues. Rent ($16,388/mo) began on earliest of opening or 180 days after lease delivery.
- DEEP inspections and tank testing before lease revealed contamination; landlords removed tanks and remediated the site under a DEEP enforcement order, but did not inform tenants of DEEP’s order or remediation.
- Tenants obtained building permits, began renovations, paid rent July–Nov 2014, then stopped paying rent Dec 2014–Feb 2015 while renovations and certificate(s) of occupancy remained incomplete. Plaintiffs served a notice to quit (Jan 7, 2015); tenants remained, later opened the rug gallery and paid use/occupancy amounts.
- Plaintiffs sued in summary process for possession for nonpayment. Tenants raised six special defenses including equitable nonforfeiture, arguing withholding was justified by contamination concerns (and alleged good faith dispute/intent). Trial court found tenants intentionally withheld rent for reasons related to renovation delays (not a good faith lease dispute), deemed their contamination claim pretextual, and denied equitable relief.
- The Appellate Court affirmed; the Connecticut Supreme Court granted certification and affirmed, holding the trial court did not abuse its equitable discretion in finding wilful nonpayment and denying relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether equitable nonforfeiture barred eviction for nonpayment | Tenants wilfully withheld rent for noncontractual reasons; no equitable relief warranted | Withholding was in good faith because of environmental contamination and/or a good‑faith dispute or intent to comply; escrowed funds show good faith; wilful should require intent to injure | Trial court did not abuse discretion: withholding was intentional and pretextual, not accompanied by a good‑faith dispute or intent to comply; wilful need not mean intent to injure; equitable relief denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Fellows v. Martin, 584 A.2d 458 (Conn. 1991) (intentional underpayment may be excused if accompanied by good‑faith intent to comply or good‑faith dispute over lease; de minimis breach example)
- Cumberland Farms, Inc. v. Dairy Mart, Inc., 627 A.2d 386 (Conn. 1993) (three elements for equitable nonforfeiture in nonpayment cases)
- Connecticut Light & Power Co. v. Lighthouse Landings, Inc., 900 A.2d 1242 (Conn. 2006) (equitable nonforfeiture is available in summary process proceedings)
- 19 Perry Street, LLC v. Unionville Water Co., 987 A.2d 1009 (Conn. 2010) (discusses good‑faith intent issue and formulations of "wilful")
- Thompson v. Orcutt, 777 A.2d 670 (Conn. 2001) (party seeking equitable relief must show fair, equitable, and honest conduct / clean hands)