The defendant, Emilie Beauvais, did not deny these allegations of the complaint but did file a special defense and counterclaim alleging that because plaintiff has "arbitrarily decided not to participate in the Emergency Mortgage Assistance program" the plaintiff was "estopped" from foreclosing its mortgage, and that the defendant was entitled to "compensatory damages, costs and interest".
The motion to strike filed by the plaintiff contends that a special defense and counterclaim based on a mortgagee's nonparticipation in the emergency mortgage assistance program as set forth in Public Act 93-414, effective July 1, 1993, subsequently codified as General Statutes §
In opposing the plaintiff's motion to strike, the defendant claims that the plaintiff's nonparticipation in EMAA constitutes a breach of the implied covenant that the plaintiff must act in good faith and fair dealing in its relationship to the defendant, and that as a result, the plaintiff is "estopped" from foreclosing its mortgage and is also liable to the defendant in damages.
The motion to strike is granted because section 1(4) of Public Act 93-414 clearly states that it applies only when a lender such as the plaintiff "agrees to participate in the program." The legislative history relating to this act reveals that the bill originally passed required participation by mortgagees, but was subsequently amended to make the program voluntary on the part of mortgagees. 36 H.R. Proc., Pt. 36, 1993 Sess., p. 13063-72.2 Therefore, plaintiff's motion to strike defendant Emilie Beauvais' special defense and counterclaim is granted.3
