184 Conn. App. 808
Conn. App. Ct.2018Background
- Landlord Kaye sued tenant Housman for unpaid rent and related claims; complaint returnable May 24, 2016.
- Defendant filed an appearance; plaintiff repeatedly moved for default for failure to plead after timing disputes.
- On August 18, 2016 Housman filed an answer, 12 special defenses, and a right of recoupment; plaintiff filed a request to revise eight special defenses and recoupment.
- Plaintiff moved for default after the defendant did not respond to the request to revise; the court granted default and later held a hearing in damages where judgment entered for plaintiff.
- Defendant sought relief via motions to set aside default, to amend, and to strike the hearing-in-damages listing; the court denied those motions and defendant appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court properly granted default for failure to plead when defendant filed an answer and some special defenses | Kaye: special defenses are part of the answer (Practice Book §10-6(5)), so failure to revise any of them renders entire answer defaulted | Housman: he timely filed an answer and four special defenses that plaintiff did not seek to revise; default on the complaint was improper | Reversed: court lacked authority to default on entire complaint where a timely answer and unchallenged special defenses had been filed |
| Whether default justified placing case on hearing-in-damages list (liability conclusively determined) | Kaye: default as to pleadings justified proceeding to damages on liability | Housman: placement on damages list deprived him of ability to litigate liability on timely plead matters | Held default improperly entered; matter should not have proceeded to damages without resolving timely-filed pleadings |
| Whether Practice Book procedure permits default based solely on failure to respond to request to revise special defenses | Kaye: reliance on §10-6 ordering and §10-37 automatic grant mechanism for requests to revise | Housman: §10-6 does not define special defenses as part of the answer; rules treat answer and special defenses as distinct; default was discretionary and unsuitable here | Court found rule constructions and precedent require careful exercise of discretion; default was improper under these circumstances |
| Appropriate remedy when portions of pleadings are untimely vs. timely | Kaye: entire pleading should be treated as defaulted | Housman: court should expunge or disallow only the noncompliant defenses and allow trial on remaining defenses/answer | Court favored limiting penalties to noncompliant portions and noted precedent and statutes favor resolving disputes on the merits (trial on the merits where possible) |
Key Cases Cited
- Connecticut Light & Power Co. v. St. John, 80 Conn. App. 767 (trial court cannot default defendants on complaint that they properly answered)
- People’s United Bank v. Bok, 143 Conn. App. 263 (court has discretionary authority to impose default for pleading rule violations but should favor trial on the merits)
- CAS Construction Co. v. Dainty Rubbish Service, Inc., 60 Conn. App. 294 (default establishes entitlement to judgment but further proceedings may be required on damages)
- McCarthy v. Thames Dyeing & Bleaching Co., 130 Conn. 652 (where part of a claim is defective, the proper remedy is to expunge offending allegations or object at trial—not necessarily to dismiss entire action)
- Connecticut National Bank v. Marland, 45 Conn. App. 354 (distinguishable: defendant was nonsuited on special defenses and counterclaim but not defaulted on answer)
- U.S. Bank Natl. Assn. v. Blowers, 177 Conn. App. 622 (describing purpose of special defenses)