Milford Redevelopment & Housing Partnership v. Glicklin, 228 Conn. App. 593 (2024)

Citation: Milford Redevelopment & Housing Partnership v. Glicklin, 228 Conn. App. 593 (2024)
Parent Document: Milford Redevelopment & Housing Partnership v. Glicklin, 228 Conn. App. 593 (2024)
Jurisdiction: Connecticut (state)
Effective Date: 2024-10-15
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10136084/milford-redevelopment-housing-... ↗

Full Text

2,718 chars

The defendant did not plead in her answer that she
cured the violation within the thirty days prescribed in
the pretermination notice. Although we are cognizant
that the defendant was self-represented at this time,
she filed her answer on Judicial Form JD-HM-5, titled
‘‘Summary Process (Eviction) Answer to Complaint,’’
which provides express instructions on how to com-
plete that form. See Official Court Webforms, Form JD-
HM-5, available at https://jud.ct.gov/webforms/forms/
hm005.pdf (last visited October 3, 2024). Section 2 of
the form is dedicated to special defenses and provides
a defendant with a number of special defenses, each
of which has a box that a defendant can select to indi-
cate that they are asserting that specific defense. More-
over, the form includes a definition of the term ‘‘special
defenses’’ that reads: ‘‘Facts showing the court that the
plaintiff has no legal right to evict you.’’ Included in
section 2 in the list of special defenses is the statement:
‘‘I remedied the issue(s) listed in the pre-termination
notice delivered to me under Connecticut law.’’ The
defendant did not select that special defense and,
instead, selected the box immediately underneath it,
which is accompanied by the special defense: ‘‘Addi-
tional reasons why I should not be evicted . . . .’’ The
defendant handwrote as an additional reason that she
is ‘‘attempting to quit smoking.’’ She, therefore, did not
plead that she cured the violation.17
plaintiff has no cause of action, must be specially alleged. . . .’ ’’ Housing
Authority v. Martin, supra, 95 Conn. App. 814 n.8.
17
In her appellate brief, the defendant argues that ‘‘[t]he language in [her]
[a]nswer can easily be construed as pleading the equitable doctrine against
forfeiture as a special defense which incorporates cure as one of its ele-
ments.’’ In light of our conclusion that the court erred in rendering judgment
on the unpleaded special defense of cure, we recognize that the court did
not consider her special defense ‘‘I have lived on the premises for [thirteen
years] and I have complied with all rent payments and I am attempting to
quit smoking.’’ We express no opinion as to the construction of this special
defense were it to be pursued on remand.
0, 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 21

Other Sections in This Document (60)

Full Text