204 Conn.App. 537
Conn. App. Ct.2021Background
- Jan and Beata Hlinka acquired title to 180 Rosebrook Drive in 1999; Maria Michaels (defendant) retained a contractual right to reside there so long as she was not a burden.
- Relations soured; Jan Hlinka served a notice to quit on Michaels in February 2019 and filed a summary process complaint seeking possession.
- Michaels moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the notice/complaint did not expressly show both co-owners joined the action; the motion was denied.
- Michaels filed an answer, several special defenses (including laches and estoppel) and a five-count counterclaim; she successfully moved to cite in Beata Hlinka as a counterclaim defendant.
- The Hlinkas moved to strike only the counterclaim; the trial court granted that motion and, sua sponte, struck all special defenses except estoppel (including laches).
- After a bench trial the court awarded possession to the Hlinkas; Michaels appealed, arguing lack of jurisdiction and improper sua sponte striking of laches.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Hlinka) | Defendant's Argument (Michaels) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject matter jurisdiction — whether summary process requires explicit joinder/affirmation by all co-owners | No statutory requirement that all owners be named or that unanimity be alleged; Hlinka entitled to proceed | Summary process lacked jurisdiction because complaint/affidavit did not state both joint owners agreed to bring the action | Court held it had jurisdiction: record showed co-owners were unanimous in seeking eviction and §47a‑23 contains no requirement that unanimity be pled or sworn |
| Sua sponte striking of special defense of laches | Laches was nonresponsive to complaint; striking was proper | Plaintiffs only moved to strike counterclaim; court gave no notice it would strike defenses; striking laches sua sponte violated due process | Court erred: striking laches sua sponte was improper because Michaels lacked reasonable notice; judgment reversed and remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- Ajadi v. Commissioner of Correction, 280 Conn. 514 (plenary review on subject matter jurisdiction; jurisdiction may be raised at any time)
- U.S. Bank Natl. Assn. v. Karl, 128 Conn. App. 805 (summary process statutes construed narrowly; notice to quit is jurisdictional prerequisite)
- Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Fratarcangeli, 192 Conn. App. 159 (standard for motion to strike; accept pleaded facts and construe in plaintiff's favor)
- Heim v. California Fed. Bank, 78 Conn. App. 351 (due process requires reasonable notice before pleadings are struck; parties should know they're target of relief)
- Yale Univ. Sch. of Med. v. McCarthy, 26 Conn. App. 497 (trial court may not dismiss counterclaim in absence of motion to strike by opposing party)