Opinion
No. LLICV18-10093
July 22, 2005
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE MOTION TO STRIKE
Plaintiff has brought a summary process action seeking to evict the defendant's commercial business for nonpayment of rent. Defendant filed a responsive pleading alleging various special defenses, a setoff, and a two-count counterclaim. The setoff claim is couched in the language of a breach of contract in the plaintiff's failure to provide adequate drainage and damages resulting therefrom. The first count of the counterclaim alleges the plaintiff failed to complete the premises as contemplated by the parties and therefore the defendant was forced to expend its own funds to complete the work. The second count of the counterclaim alleges that the defendants have invested in excess of $100,000 in improvements to the premises but that the value of the improvements may be lost should the plaintiff lose the property due to pending foreclosure actions against it. The defendant seeks damages through the setoff and both counts of the counterclaim.
The plaintiff has filed a motion to strike the setoff and counterclaims asserted by the defendant.
In considering a motion to strike the court must accept as true all well pleaded facts. Peter Michael Inc., v. Sea Shell Associates, 244 Conn. 269, 270 (1998); Commissioner of Labor v. C.J.M Services, Inc., 268 Conn. 283 (2004). The court is not required to make factual findings. Vacco v. Microsoft, 260 Conn. 59, 65 (2002). All allegations are to be construed in the light most favorable to the pleader. Suffield Development Associates Limited Partnership v. National Loan Investors, L.P., 260 Conn. 766, 772 (2002). Generally, in considering a motion to strike the court is limited to the grounds specified in the motion and cannot consider unspecified grounds. Meredith v. Police Commission, 182 Conn. 138, 140-41 (1980). As a result, this court will consider only CT Page 11046-ev the grounds set forth in the plaintiff's motion.
Under the Landlord and Tenant Act, Chapter 832 of the General Statutes Sections 47a-23 through 47a-42a, a landlord may seek possession of property leased to a tenant for nonpayment of rent. Such remedy is statutory. A tenant may present any affirmative defenses that may be available. See for example, General Statute Sections 47a-33 and 47a-33a. However, the nature of a summary process proceeding under the Act is one for possession and any responsive pleading must be related to the issue of possession or occupancy. "A counterclaim that seeks relief in the form of compensatory and punitive damages is not permitted in a summary process action because prayers for monetary relief do not implicate the right to possession. Fellows v. Martin, 223 Conn. 152, 154 (1992)." Goodhall's, Inc. v. Dave Caron Chrysler, judicial district of Tolland at Rockville, Docket No. CV00-0072639 (June 1, 2000, Sullivan, J.) ( 27 Conn. L. Rptr. 290). Here, plaintiff has not alleged any claim for damages as it is not authorized to do so under the statutory remedy provided for gaining possession of the premises. As a result, any responsive pleading which would seek a setoff or a claim for monetary damages would be inappropriate. "Complaints and counterclaims seeking money damages are not permitted in summary process lawsuits, either tenant against landlord or landlord against tenant." Atlantic Refining Co. v. O'Keefe, 131 Conn. 528, 531 (1945); Curnan v. Newton, Superior Court, judicial district of Litchfield, Docket No. 185916 (August 15, 1997, Pickett, J.) ( 20 Conn. L. Rptr. 317), Such claims have been stricken by our courts in the past and this court will not deviate from that precedent. The defendant has adequate remedies at law and in equity to pursue those claims set forth by it in its request for a setoff and in its counterclaims. If it wishes, it can simply file an action for damages in Superior Court to pursue such claims and therefore will not be prejudiced by not being able to proceed with its setoff and counterclaims in this action.
For the foregoing reasons the motion to strike the claim of setoff, as well as both the first and second count of the defendant's counterclaim, is granted. In light of the foregoing, it is further ordered that the prayer for relief claiming damages also be stricken.
BY THE COURT
Shaban, J. CT Page 11046-ew