Historic District Commission v. Sciame
140 Conn. App. 209
Conn. App. Ct.2013Background
- Defendants own 10 Mohegan Avenue in Fenwick Historic District subject to the historic district commission (the Commission).
- In 2010 the Commission granted a certificate of appropriateness with a condition to lower two granite posts from five to four feet at the driveway end.
- Defendants did not appeal the decision or its conditions.
- On September 22, 2010 the Commission filed an enforcement action seeking to enforce the condition, plus fines and costs.
- On January 13, 2011 defendants answered, asserted special defenses, and counterclaimed in two counts: ultra vires/authorities and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
- On June 23, 2011 the trial court granted the Commission’s motion to strike both counterclaims and entered judgment for the Commission on those counterclaims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the motion to strike complied with Practice Book § 10-41 | Plaintiff asserts the motion stated two grounds with specific authorities and explained impact | Defendants contend the motion did not distinctly specify insufficiencies | Yes; motion satisfied § 10-41 requirements per Rowe v. Godou |
| Whether Upjohn Co. bars the counterclaims | Upjohn prohibits collateral attack on unappealed enforcement actions | Defendants argue for independent review of the commission’s decision | Upjohn barred the first count and part of the second as immune from collateral attack |
| Whether the second count states a valid claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress | Allegations show harassment to enforce a valid action | Allegations are not extreme or outrageous as a matter of law | Second count fails to allege extreme and outrageous conduct actionable as IIED |
| Whether § 52-557n bars the counterclaims | Requests damages for enforcement actions not allowed by statute | Statutory barrier does not preclude challenge to action itself | § 52-557n(b) bars both counts for failure to show reckless disregard for health or safety |
Key Cases Cited
- Stuart v. Freiberg, 102 Conn. App. 857 (Conn. App. 2007) (need for specificity in § 10-41 motion varies by case)
- Barasso v. Rear Still Hill Road, LLC, 64 Conn. App. 9 (Conn. App. 2001) (motion to strike requires specific grounds in the pleading)
- Rowe v. Godou, 209 Conn. 273 (Conn. 1988) (Rowe supports specificity standard when § 10-41 motion cites statute/case)
- Upjohn Co. v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 224 Conn. 96 (Conn. 1992) (cannot collaterally attack unappealed enforcement actions except narrow exceptions)
- Morris v. Hartford Courant Co., 200 Conn. 676 (Conn. 1986) (§ 10-41 not jurisdictional; objections waived if not raised)
- Faulkner v. United Technologies Corp., 240 Conn. 576 (Conn. 1997) (motion to strike tests pleading sufficiency; admits well pleaded facts)
- Gagnon v. Housatonic Valley Tourism District Commission, 92 Conn. App. 835 (Conn. App. 2006) (gatekeeping function for IIED requires extreme/outrageous conduct)
- Stancuna v. Schaffer, 122 Conn. App. 484 (Conn. App. 2010) (IIED standard; need specific facts)