ECR 2, LLC v. Thompson (2025)

Citation: ECR 2, LLC v. Thompson (2025)
Parent Document: ECR 2, LLC v. Thompson (2025)
Jurisdiction: Connecticut (state)
Effective Date: 2025-05-13
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10582095/ecr-2-llc-v-thompson/ ↗

Full Text

2,485 chars

with the lease or a good faith dispute over the meaning
of a lease.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 241–
42. ‘‘[W]e [also] have previously noted that wilful is a
word of many meanings, and its construction [is] often
. . . influenced by its context . . . .’’ (Citation omit-
ted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 246–47.
Consistent with the aforementioned principles, the
court found that the defendant did not act with clean
hands and did not demonstrate a good faith intent to
comply with the lease in that he did not notify the
plaintiff of his issues with the conditions of the premises
in writing as required by the lease. The defendant con-
tends that the court should have based its wilfulness
determination on whether his nonpayment was ‘‘ ‘not
without just cause or excuse’ ’’ or whether it constituted
‘‘ ‘mere neglect’ ’’ in that he relied on the advice of his
HUD-VASH counselor. Although those may have been
alternative measures of the defendant’s wilfulness, the
defendant has cited no authority, nor are we aware of
any, that requires the trial court to apply a specific
definition of wilfulness. Accordingly, we cannot con-
clude that the trial court’s reliance on a recognized and
legally correct definition of wilfulness constituted error.
III
The defendant finally claims that the court erred in
rejecting his special defense that he had a right to cure,
and did cure, his nonpayment of rent. We disagree.
In addressing the defendant’s argument that he cured
his nonpayment of rent, the court reasoned: ‘‘The defen-
dant contends in his first special defense that he had
the right to cure, and did cure, his nonpayment prior
to the April 7 quit date when he sent four money orders
to the plaintiff’s counsel via certified mail for his portion
of rent that was due for January through April. He
argues that the court should apply the contract law
principle articulated in Centerplan Construction Co.,
LLC v. Hartford, 343 Conn. 368, [412, 274 A.3d 51]
0, 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 15

Other Sections in This Document (45)

Full Text