Cathedral Green, Inc. v. Hughes
166 A.3d 873
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Cathedral Green, Inc. obtained a stipulated judgment in a summary process action giving it possession but stayed execution so Dorothy Hughes and her child could remain if Hughes complied with conditions.
- The stipulation prohibited Hughes from allowing William Moore (nontenant, alleged trespasser) on the unit or common areas and required her to call police if he entered in her presence; Hughes was represented by counsel when she signed.
- Plaintiff later filed for execution alleging Hughes knowingly allowed Moore on the premises during the stay; property staff and security camera photos recorded Moore following Hughes into the building and being in her apartment for a birthday dinner.
- Hughes admitted Moore was in her apartment on July 9, 2015, and that she cooked him dinner; she did not call police and testified she had invited him.
- Trial court found Hughes wilfully breached the stipulation, denied equitable nonforfeiture relief, and ordered execution (with a short equitable stay to let Hughes relocate).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court relied on facts not in evidence | Facts (photos, staff testimony) show Moore on premises with Hughes' knowledge; judgment enforcement proper | Court allegedly relied on unsupported inferences (e.g., stating stipulation entered "in light of" prior problems; photo showing Hughes "holding the door") | Court's factual findings were supported or any misstatements were harmless; not clearly erroneous |
| Whether court applied correct legal standard for equitable nonforfeiture | Stipulation should be enforced; Fellows test governs and balances favor plaintiff given public-safety risk | Hughes argued equitable nonforfeiture should prevent dispossession because eviction would be disproportionate harm | Court applied Fellows three-part test (wilfulness, disproportionate harm, reparability) and addressed equities |
| Whether breach was wilful (bar to equitable relief) | Evidence (admission, eyewitnesses, photos) shows knowing, voluntary conduct—wilful | Hughes claimed misunderstanding of duties and emphasized housing loss hardship | Court reasonably found breach wilful (invited Moore, hid his presence, never called police), dispositive against equitable relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Fellows v. Martin, 217 Conn. 57 (1991) (establishes availability and limits of equitable nonforfeiture in summary process)
- Presidential Village, LLC v. Phillips, 325 Conn. 394 (2017) (reiterates Fellows test and cautions on balancing prongs)
- Cumberland Farms, Inc. v. Dairy Mart, Inc., 225 Conn. 771 (1993) (states Fellows three-part test in conjunctive)
- Saunders v. Firtel, 293 Conn. 515 (2009) (discusses definitions and standards for wilful conduct)
- Juliano v. Juliano, 96 Conn. App. 381 (2006) (standard of review for factual findings in memorandum of decision)