Hlinka v. Michaels

Citations

• 204 Conn. App. 537

Syllabus

The plaintiff, J, sought, by way of summary process, to regain possession of certain premises that he owned with B, his wife, that were occupied by the defendant. The defendant filed special defenses, a counterclaim and prayers for relief. The trial court granted the defendant's motion to cite in B as a counterclaim defendant. When J and B moved to strike the defendant's counterclaim and prayers for relief, the trial court, sua sponte, struck all but one of the defendant's special defenses. Following a trial, the court rendered judgment of possession of the premises in favor of J and B, and the defendant appealed to this court. Held: 1. The defendant could not prevail on her claim that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the action, as the record clearly reflected that the joint owners of the premises were unanimous in their desire that the defendant be evicted from the premises: after B was added as a party to the action, she joined with J, a joint owner, in all efforts to secure a judgment of possession for them and against the defendant and there was no evidence that B objected to the summary process action; moreover, there was no language or provision in the applicable statute (§ 47a-23) providing that the trial court was deprived of subject matter jurisdiction over a summary process action unless all owners of a subject property agreed with the initiation of the action by a statement in the complaint or some sworn statement. 2. The trial court improperly struck, sua sponte, the defendant's special defense of laches; the defendant was not provided with reasonable notice that her special defense could be struck, as J and B filed a motion to strike the defendant's counterclaim and prayers for relief and did not move to strike the defendant's special defenses, yet, in granting the motion to strike, the court struck the special defense of laches. Argued February 10—officially released May 11, 2021