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

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

Citation
Boccanfuso v. Daghoghi, 337 Conn. 228 (2020)
Parent Document
Boccanfuso v. Daghoghi, 337 Conn. 228 (2020)
Jurisdiction
Connecticut (state)
Effective Date
2020-09-30

Other Sections in This Document (50)

Full Text

2,526 chars
equitable relief; thus, a tenant whose breach was [wilful]
          or grossly negligent will not be entitled to relief.’’ (Inter-
          nal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 67. The tenant’s with-
          holding of $25.01 from her rent in Fellows was indis-
          putably intentional. We determined, however, that ‘‘[w]e
          need not decide whether a tenant who deliberately
          refuses to pay rent may yet claim relief under the equita-
          ble doctrine against forfeitures [when] the forfeiture is
          as grossly disproportionate as it is in this case.’’ Id., 68.
          It was unnecessary to decide that issue because the
          trial court had determined that the tenant’s nonpayment
          was prompted by a good faith dispute over the meaning
          of a lease term, which we said is a ground that may
          excuse deliberate nonpayment if the trial court deter-
          mines that the equities so require. See id., 69 (‘‘[t]he
          doctrine against forfeitures applies to a failure to pay
          rent in full when that failure is accompanied by a good
          faith intent to comply with the lease or a good faith
          dis-
          pute over the meaning of a lease’’). We explained that
          ‘‘the trial court found that the tenant withheld the rent
          in a dispute over her parking accommodations. She
          apparently believed that she had the right to withhold
          rent if her landlord breached the lease. While her belief
          was erroneous . . . her misconception amounts to a
          mistake of law, rather than the type of wilfulness disap-
          proved by [our case law] and other authorities.’’ (Cita-
          tion omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 68.
          Chief Justice Peters made this same point in a concur-
          ring opinion, in which she concluded that, ‘‘[because]
          the tenant’s breach was not [wilful], but was premised
          on a good faith dispute, forfeiture of her interest would
          be wholly disproportionate to the gravity of her default.’’
          (Emphasis added.) Id., 72 (Peters, C. J., concurring). To
          summarize, Fellows demonstrates that a tenant’s inten-
          tional nonpayment of rent does not require a finding
          that the nonpayment is wilful under the equitable non-
          forfeiture doctrine if nonpayment ‘‘is accompanied by
Page 16                   CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                 July 20, 2021