Boccanfuso v. Daghoghi, 337 Conn. 228 (2020)

DOMINICK BOCCANFUSO ET AL. v.
                        NADER DAGHOGHI ET AL.
                               (SC 20397)
                      Robinson, C. J., and Palmer, McDonald, D’Auria,
                              Mullins, Kahn and Ecker, Js.*
                                           Syllabus
         The plaintiff landlords sought to regain possession of certain real property
            from the defendant tenants on the ground of nonpayment of rent. The
            parties had executed a commercial lease for the property. The property
            previously had been used as an automobile sales and repair facility, but
            the defendants intended to operate a retail rug gallery and a restaurant
            on the premises. The defendants started making monthly rent payments
            but stopped approximately five months later. At that time, the defendants
            had not completed their planned renovations to the premises and had not
            obtained the certificates of occupancy required to open the businesses.
            Meanwhile, without informing the defendants, the plaintiffs had been
            remediating the property of certain environmental contamination in
            accordance with a stipulated judgment with the Department of Energy
            and Environmental Protection. After the defendants failed to pay rent
            for three consecutive months, the plaintiffs served them with a notice
            to quit, and, when the defendants failed to vacate the premises, the
            plaintiffs commenced this summary process action. The defendants
            asserted several special defenses, including equitable nonforfeiture. At
            trial, two of the defendants testified that the defendants had stopped
            paying rent because it was the only way they could stay in business
            and to draw the plaintiffs’ attention to their difficulties. The trial court
            rendered judgment of possession for the plaintiffs, concluding, inter
            alia, that the equitable nonforfeiture defense did not apply because the
            defendants had intentionally breached the lease. Specifically, the court
            rejected the defendants’ claims that they had a good faith intent to
            comply with, and a good faith dispute over the meaning of, the lease. The
            court found that the defendants’ alleged concerns about environmental
            contamination, which the defendants claimed justified their withholding
            of rent, were pretextual, and that the defendants’ nonpayment actually
            was motivated by the costs and difficulties arising from the delay in
            renovating and occupying the premises. The Appellate Court affirmed
            the trial court’s judgment, and the defendants, on the granting of certifi-
            cation, appealed to this court. Held that the trial court did not abuse
            its discretion in rejecting the defendant’s equitable nonforfeiture
            defense, and, accordingly, the Appellate Court properly affirmed the
            trial court’s judgment; because the defendants intentionally withheld