Seaport Capital Partners v. Sheri Speer (2014)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE MOTION TO STRIKE (# 181)

The plaintiff Seaport Capital filed a Reply to Special Defenses asserted by the defendant Speer, an Answer to the defendant's counterclaim, and three Special Defenses to the Counterclaim.   The defendant, Speer now seeks to strike the Reply to Special Defense;  to strike plaintiff's responses to paragraphs 7 and 9 of the Answer to the defendant's counterclaim;  and to strike the three Special Defenses to the Counterclaim.

The court assumes that the parties are familiar with the standards that govern the court's ruling on a motion to strike.

Should the plaintiff's reply to the special defense filed by the defendant be stricken?

The defendant asserts in its first special defense to the plaintiff's complaint that the plaintiff has unclean hands and, therefore, should not be entitled to equitable relief in the form of a judgment of foreclosure.   The defense articulates certain specific ways in which the defendant claims that the plaintiff acted inequitably and improperly in the making, disbursement, and enforcement of the promissory note and mortgage.   The court understands the special defense to claim in essence that the plaintiff sought to prevent the defendant from receiving the benefit of their bargain and to interfere with the relationship between the defendant and her tenants.   All of these facts are pled as leading to a conclusion that “the conduct (of the plaintiff) is of such a character as to be condemned as wrongful by honest and fairminded citizens.   The conduct has not been fair, equitable and honest as to the controversy at issue.”   Thus, the gravamen of the special defense is that the plaintiff has unclean hands.   The reply filed by the plaintiff that it denied it has unclean hands is therefore legally sufficient.   If the defendant had wanted to get a reply to each of the specific subsets of facts of the special defense, she could have pled them as separate numbered paragraphs.   The motion to strike the reply to this special defense is denied.

Should paragraph Seven and Nine of the plaintiff's answer to the defendant's counterclaim be stricken?

The defendant seeks to strike the plaintiff's responses to paragraph seven of the counterclaim (which relates to whether Clipper Property Management exists as an entity doing business in Connecticut) and the response to paragraph nine of the counterclaim (which makes allegations regarding an agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant to cease collecting rents in exchange for withdrawing a legal action.)   In its response to each of these separate paragraphs, the plaintiff does not properly specifically admit or deny the allegations of those paragraphs but rather makes a statement that relates to the allegations indirectly.   The proper Practice Book remedy in seeking a revision to a particular paragraph of a responsive pleading is a request to revise.   This motion to strike is denied as it is not the proper procedural vehicle to raise these issues for the court's consideration.

Should the plaintiff's first, second and third special defenses to the defendant's counterclaim be stricken?

First Special Defense.   The defendant seeks to strike the first special defense to her counterclaim which asserts that claims are barred by the statute of limitations.   Previously, the court had denied the plaintiff's motion to strike the counterclaim on the grounds the counterclaim was barred by a statute of limitations.   Generally, claims that a matter is barred by a statute of limitations are not properly adjudicated on a motion to strike.   Now the plaintiff has asserted as a special defense to the counterclaim that the matter is barred by the statute of limitations.   This defense may well be a meritorious special defense if there are facts to support it brought out during a trial or a motion for summary judgment.   At this point in the litigation, however, the court cannot reach the conclusion that the defense is legally insufficient.   The motion to strike the first special defense to the counterclaim is denied.

Second Special Defense.   The defendant seeks to strike the plaintiff's second special defense to the counterclaim.   The defendant's counterclaim asserts a claim of a violation of CUTPA.   This special defense relates to one fragment of the factual foundation upon which the defendant makes her claim namely that the loans were not properly disbursed.   Perhaps this special defense could have been also raised by a denial of a specific subparagraph of the counterclaim.   The court, however, observes that the defendant's pleadings have not been a model of legal precision or conciseness.   The plaintiff is entitled to make clear to the court and to the defendant their intent to deny this particular element of the defendant's CUTPA claim.

Third Special Defense.   The defendant, finally, seeks to strike the plaintiff's third special defense to the counterclaim in which the plaintiff asserts that Sheri Speer has unclean hands.   The plaintiff alleges that Ms. Speer has unclean hands by virtue of her failing to obey court orders in conjunction with a court ordered receiver of rents.   The court grants the motion to strike this third special defense to the counterclaim.   This defense does not relate to the enforcement of the note and mortgage, but rather relates to the conduct of the defendant and whether or not there has been compliance with certain court orders after the filing of the foreclosure action.   A contempt motion might be a more appropriate remedy and, in fact, such contempt motions have already been considered by the court.

Conclusion

For the above reasons, the defendant's motion to strike is denied in all respects except with regard to the plaintiff's third special defense to the defendant's counterclaim which defense is ordered stricken.

Cosgrove, J.

Cosgrove, Emmet L., J.