Clifford Polson et al. v. Edward Wargo et al. (2010)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE MOTION TO STRIKE SPECIAL DEFENSES ¹

This matter is an appeal from the decision of the probate court.   The plaintiff has filed a motion to strike three special defenses on the basis that they merely state conclusions of law and are devoid of any factual allegations in support thereof.   The defendants neither objected to the motion to strike nor filed a memorandum as contemplated under Practice Book § 10-42.²

The defendant's first special defense states:  “Appellants' claims are barred, in whole or in part, by virtue of the doctrine of waiver.”   The second special defense provides:  “Appellants' claims are barred, in whole or in part, by virtue of the doctrine of estoppel.”   The third special defense provides:  “Any assertion or reliance by the Appellants on the Connecticut Home Improvement Act is barred by bad faith.”   The special defenses contain no factual allegations to explain or support the legal conclusions set forth.

This court's review of the relevant Practice Book provisions and the decisions of other superior court jurists ³ leads this court to conclude that special defenses must be supported by adequate factual allegations or they will be stricken as legally insufficient.   See, Connecticut v. 239 Orange Street, LLC, 49 Conn. L. Rptr No. 24, 884 (August 23, 2010) (Abrams, J.) Specifically, Practice Book § 10-1 provides that “Each pleading shall contain a plain and concise statement of the material facts on which the pleader relies.”   Practice Book § 10-50, governing special defenses provides:  “Facts which are consistent with [plaintiff's statements] but show, notwithstanding that the plaintiff has no cause of action, must be specially alleged.”   Further, Practice Book § 10-51, relating to multiple special defenses provides:  “Any statement of a matter of defense resting in part upon facts pleaded in any preceding statement, in the same answer may refer to those facts as thus recited without otherwise repeating them.”   The court sees no reason to afford the pleading of special defenses less stringent requirements than those set for allegations in a complaint.   It is well settled that a complaint that alleges mere legal conclusions will be stricken as insufficient.  Novametrix Medical Systems, Inc. v. BOC Group, Inc., 224 Conn. 210, 215 (1992).

For the foregoing reasons, the motion to strike is granted.

By the Court

Dooley, J.

FOOTNOTES

FN1. The motion was granted following oral argument on September 7, 2010.   This memorandum memorializes that decision and the reasons for it..  FN1. The motion was granted following oral argument on September 7, 2010.   This memorandum memorializes that decision and the reasons for it.

FN2. This Court adopts the majority view among superior court jurists that the current version of Section 10-42 allows the court to exercise discretion in hearing this motion on its merits despite that the party to whom it is directed failed to object or otherwise comply with the practice book.   See, e.g. Sullivan v. Guzman, 2006 Ct.Sup. 20015, 42 CLR 233 (2006)..  FN2. This Court adopts the majority view among superior court jurists that the current version of Section 10-42 allows the court to exercise discretion in hearing this motion on its merits despite that the party to whom it is directed failed to object or otherwise comply with the practice book.   See, e.g. Sullivan v. Guzman, 2006 Ct.Sup. 20015, 42 CLR 233 (2006).

FN3. It does not appear that the Appellate Courts have indicated whether special defenses are subject to the requirements of fact pleading or whether legal conclusions are sufficient..  FN3. It does not appear that the Appellate Courts have indicated whether special defenses are subject to the requirements of fact pleading or whether legal conclusions are sufficient.

Dooley, Kari A., J.