Skip to main content
INTERNAL PROTOTYPE — NOT LEGAL ADVICE — DO NOT SEND

Fellows v. Martin, 217 Conn. 57 (1991)

Citation
Fellows v. Martin, 217 Conn. 57 (1991)
Parent Document
Fellows v. Martin, 217 Conn. 57 (1991)
Jurisdiction
Connecticut (state)
Effective Date
1991-01-01

Other Sections in This Document (44)

Full Text

1,117 chars
On this state of the record,2 am persuaded that this case does not furnish us the proper occasion for con*72sideration of the extent to which any and all equitable considerations now inform the availability of a statutory right to summary process. General Statutes §§ 47a-23 through 47a-42. The need to retain summary process as an “expeditious remedy to the landlord seeking possession”; Prevedini v. Mobil Oil Corporation, 164 Conn. 287, 292, 320 A.2d 797 (1973); must be balanced against the broad jurisdiction now conferred upon the judges of the Superior Court hearing cases in the housing division. See Southland Corporation v. Vernon, 1 Conn. App. 439, 449, 473 A.2d 318 (1984). In my view, we should pursue that balancing process, in the common law tradition, on a case-by-case basis, in order to identify the relevant factors that tip the scales one way or the other. It seems to me entirely plausible, for example, that an equitable defense to default on a lease that sought a far-reaching accounting of complex partnership or intercorporate relations would not lend itself to resolution by summary process.