ECR 2, LLC v. Thompson (2025)

Citation: ECR 2, LLC v. Thompson (2025)
Parent Document: ECR 2, LLC v. Thompson (2025)
Jurisdiction: Connecticut (state)
Effective Date: 2025-05-13
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10582095/ecr-2-llc-v-thompson/ ↗

Full Text

2,413 chars

148 A.3d 1123 (2016), cert. denied, 324 Conn. 917, 154
          A.3d 1008 (2017). Additionally, the defendant did not file
          a motion to preclude previously nondisclosed evidence
          with the trial court.7 The record is therefore inadequate
          to review on appeal any challenge to the court’s decision
          not to consider the defendant’s proposed motion. See
          Nedder v. Nedder, 226 Conn. App. 817, 822 n.2, 320
          A.3d 180 (2024) (‘‘[i]t is a well established principle of
          appellate procedure that the appellant has the duty of
          providing this court with a record adequate to afford
          review’’ (internal quotation marks omitted)). The defen-
          dant’s claim that his right to due process was violated
          therefore fails.
                                              II
             The defendant next claims that the court applied the
          wrong legal standard in rejecting his special defense
          of equitable nonforfeiture. Specifically, the defendant
          argues that the court used an incorrect definition of
          ‘‘wilful.’’ We are not persuaded.
             ‘‘The doctrine of equitable nonforfeiture is a defense
          implicating the right of possession that may be raised
          in a summary process proceeding, and is based on the
          principle that [e]quity abhors . . . a forfeiture. . . .
          Equitable principles barring forfeitures may apply to
          summary process actions for nonpayment of rent if: (1)
          the tenant’s breach was not [wilful] or grossly negligent;
          (2) upon eviction the tenant will suffer a loss wholly
          disproportionate to the injury to the landlord; and (3)
          the landlord’s injury is reparable. . . . Regarding the
          first requirement, we have explained that [wilful] or
            7
              We note that the record does not reflect, nor does the defendant argue,
          that the court prevented the defendant from filing his motion to preclude.
          The court simply declined to consider the defendant’s proposed motion due
          to its untimeliness. The defendant should have filed his motion to properly
          preserve his claim on appeal. See Practice Book § 61-10 (a). He failed to
          do so.
0, 0                    CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                     Page 11

Other Sections in This Document (45)

Full Text