ECR 2, LLC v. Thompson

Syllabus

The defendant tenant appealed from the trial court's judgment of possession for the plaintiff landlord in the plaintiff's summary process action. The defendant claimed, inter alia, that the court erred in rejecting his special defense in which he alleged that he had a right to cure his nonpayment of rent. Held: The defendant's claim that the trial court violated his right to due process in denying his motion for a continuance of the trial and in refusing to consider his motion to preclude certain evidence was unavailing, as he failed to identify, either to the trial court or in his brief to this court, which of his due process rights were violated, his identification of those rights for the first time during oral argument to this court was improper, and the record was inadequate to review any challenge to the trial court's decision not to consider his proposed motion to preclude, as the defendant failed to preserve the record by filing the motion. This court could not conclude that the trial court erred in relying on a legally correct definition of wilfulness in rejecting the defendant's special defense of equitable nonforfeiture, the defendant having presented no authority requiring the trial court to apply a specific definition. The trial court properly rejected the defendant's claim that he had a right to cure his nonpayment of rent, as the unambiguous language of the parties' lease provided that the defendant's failure to pay his rent on the first of the month or within nine days thereafter would constitute a default under the lease and he would immediately forfeit all rights to occupy the apartment, clearly indicating that there was no right to cure once the defendant defaulted, and, once the notice to quit had been served on him, any payments he made were for use and occupancy only. Argued February 18—officially released May 13, 2025