Town of Windham v. Greg R. Cox et al. (2015)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON MOTION TO STRIKE (# 106) and on OBJECTION TO MOTION TO STRIKE (# 108)

In this action seeking to foreclose upon four separately-filed municipal liens, plaintiff moves to strike all seven of the special defenses pled by defendant Greg Cox.

The complaint characterizes the lien described in count 1 as a “blight fine lien,” those described in counts two and three as liens “for recovery of expenditures for emergency measures,” and that described in count 4 as a “lien of fines pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes Section 7–148aa.”   Cox's answer admits that at all relevant times he has been the title holder to the parcel of real estate upon which the town has placed the liens, but otherwise makes no admissions pertinent to the present discussion.

Without specifying to which count(s), if fewer than all four, his special defenses apply, Cox asserts that 1) he received no notice of the liens;  2) the amounts of the liens are excessive;  3) equity, specifically the doctrine of unclean hands, bars plaintiff from recovering from him;  4) he did not create the blight which plaintiff undertook to remedy;  5) he has complied with all laws pertinent to his use of his premises;  6) the liens are “invalid”;  and 7) he has mitigated any alleged damages.

Plaintiff, similarly addressing the defenses collectively rather than singularly, contends that 1) liens created pursuant to Conn. Gen.Stat. § 7–148aa do not require notice;  2) defendant failed to exhaust administrative remedies as to underlying liens and fines;  and 3) defendant failed to plead facts as required of parties claiming special defenses.

Each party has filed a memorandum of law, and each had the opportunity at short calendar to argue its position.   Guiding this court's analysis in deciding the motion is the well-known rule that “[t]he purpose of a special defense is to plead facts that are consistent with the allegations of the complaint but demonstrate, nonetheless, that the plaintiff has no cause of action [and that] [i]n ruling on a motion to strike, the court must accept as true the facts alleged in the special defenses and construe them in the manner most favorable to sustaining their legal sufficiency.”  (Citations omitted;  internal quotation marks omitted.)  Barasso v. Rear Still Hill Road, LLC, 64 Conn.App. 9, 13 (2001).

As articulated, the three challenges to the seven special defenses raised against the four counts would permit discussion of eighty-four separate concepts.   The court, having read the parties' memoranda, and guided by the relevant authorities, hereby orders that the motion is:

Granted, as to special defenses number 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, as to all counts;  and

Denied, as to special defenses number 1 and 7, as to all counts.

The Objection is sustained as to defenses 1 and 7, and overruled as to 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.

Boland, Senior Judge

Boland, John D., S.J.