Milford Redevelopment & Housing Partnership v. Glicklin, 228 Conn. App. 593 (2024)

Citation: Milford Redevelopment & Housing Partnership v. Glicklin, 228 Conn. App. 593 (2024)
Parent Document: Milford Redevelopment & Housing Partnership v. Glicklin, 228 Conn. App. 593 (2024)
Jurisdiction: Connecticut (state)
Effective Date: 2024-10-15
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10136084/milford-redevelopment-housing-... ↗

Full Text

2,443 chars

A
The plaintiff first claims that the court improperly
rendered judgment for the defendant because she did
not assert as a special defense that she cured the viola-
tion of the no-smoking policy. The defendant responds
that she pleaded the special defense of cure because
her ‘‘answer can easily be construed as pleading the
equitable doctrine against forfeiture as a special defense
which incorporates cure as one of its elements.’’ We
agree with the plaintiff.
Our resolution of this claim ‘‘requires us to interpret
the defendant’s pro se answer. As a consequence, the
issue before the court invokes our plenary power to
review the legal effect of pleadings.’’ Vanguard Engi-
neering, Inc. v. Anderson, 83 Conn. App. 62, 65, 848
A.2d 545 (2004). ‘‘A defendant’s failure to plead a special
defense precludes the admission of evidence on the
subject. . . . Although our courts are consistently
. . . solicitous of the rights of pro se litigants, the rules
of practice cannot be ignored to the detriment of other
parties. . . . It would be fundamentally unfair to allow
any defendant to await the time of trial to introduce
an unpleaded defense. Such conduct would result in
trial by ambuscade to the detriment of the opposing
party.’’ (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks
omitted.) Oakland Heights Mobile Park, Inc. v. Simon,
36 Conn. App. 432, 436–37, 651 A.2d 281 (1994). In a
summary process action, ‘‘[i]f a tenant claims that a
breach can be and has been remedied and is no longer
continuing, the tenant should state those claims in a
special defense to the summary process action.’’16 Hous-
ing Authority v. Martin, supra, 95 Conn. App. 814.
the court’s consideration of an unpleaded special defense, we need not
address this additional claim.
16
‘‘This is consistent with Practice Book § 10-50, which provides in relevant
part: ‘No facts may be proved under either a general or special denial except
such as show that the plaintiff’s statements of fact are untrue. Facts which
are consistent with such statements but show, notwithstanding, that the
Page 20 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL 0, 0

Other Sections in This Document (60)

Full Text