Skip to main content
INTERNAL PROTOTYPE — NOT LEGAL ADVICE — DO NOT SEND

Boccanfuso v. Daghoghi, 337 Conn. 228 (2020)

Citation
Boccanfuso v. Daghoghi, 337 Conn. 228 (2020)
Parent Document
Boccanfuso v. Daghoghi, 337 Conn. 228 (2020)
Jurisdiction
Connecticut (state)
Effective Date
2020-09-30

Other Sections in This Document (50)

Full Text

2,459 chars
because the defendants’ failure to pay rent was wilful.
          We agree with the plaintiffs that the trial court did not
          abuse its discretion when it rejected the defendants’
          defense of equitable nonforfeiture on the facts of this
          case and, therefore, affirm the judgment of the Appel-
          late Court.
             Our standard of review is clear. ‘‘We employ the abuse
          of discretion standard when reviewing a trial court’s
          decision to exercise its equitable powers. . . . Although
          we ordinarily are reluctant to interfere with a trial
          court’s equitable discretion . . . we will reverse where
          we find that a trial court acting as a court of equity
          could not reasonably have concluded as it did . . . or
          to prevent abuse or injustice. . . . In reviewing claims
          of error in the trial court’s exercise of discretion in mat-
          ters of equity, we give great weight to the trial court’s
          decision. . . . [E]very reasonable presumption should
          be given in favor of its correctness.’’ (Citations omitted;
          internal quotation marks omitted.) Presidential Village,
          LLC v. Phillips, 325 Conn. 394, 407, 158 A.3d 772 (2017).
          We remain mindful that ‘‘[o]ur practice in this [s]tate
          has been to give a liberal interpretation to equitable rules
          in working out, as far as possible, a just result . . . .’’
          (Internal quotation marks omitted.) 19 Perry Street,
          LLC v. Unionville Water Co., 294 Conn. 611, 630, 987
          A.2d 1009 (2010).
             ‘‘The doctrine of equitable nonforfeiture is a defense
          implicating the right of possession that may be raised
          in a summary process proceeding, and is based on the
          principle that [e]quity abhors . . . a forfeiture.’’ (Inter-
          nal quotation marks omitted.) Connecticut Light &
          Power Co. v. Lighthouse Landings, Inc., 279 Conn. 90,
          106 n.15, 900 A.2d 1242 (2006). ‘‘Equitable principles bar-
          ring forfeitures may apply to summary process actions
          for nonpayment of rent if: (1) the tenant’s breach was
          not [wilful] or grossly negligent; (2) upon eviction the
          tenant will suffer a loss wholly disproportionate to the
Page 14                        CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                             July 20, 2021