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

building. And we just wanted the project to finish so
          we could get into the building.’’ (Footnote added.) With-
          holding rent in order to ‘‘stay in business’’ and to ‘‘draw
          [the plaintiffs’] attention’’ to the defendants’ difficult
          financial situation demonstrates neither a good faith
          intent to comply with the lease nor a good faith dispute
          over the meaning of the lease.9
            Our analysis does not end there, however, because
          this case requires us to address the issue left open
          in Fellows, that is, whether a defendant’s intentional
          nonpayment of rent must necessarily be deemed wilful,
          for purposes of the equitable nonforfeiture doctrine, if
          the tenant cannot show that the withholding was the
          result of a good faith intent to comply with the lease
          or a good faith dispute over the meaning of the lease.
          See Fellows v. Martin, supra, 217 Conn. 68 (‘‘[w]e need
          not decide whether a tenant who deliberately refuses
          to pay rent may yet claim relief under the equitable
          doctrine against forfeitures [when] the forfeiture is as
            9
              The defendants point out that they deposited the withheld rent in an
          escrow account and argue that this demonstrates their good faith intent to
          comply with their obligation to pay monthly rent. The defendants cite our
          decision in 19 Perry Street, LLC v. Unionville Water Co., supra, 294 Conn.
          611, in support of their argument. Although the payment of the withheld
          rent into escrow may be a fact warranting consideration by the trial court,
          it does not alone compel a finding of good faith. In 19 Perry Street, LLC,
          the defendant water company learned that its landlord had sold the leased
          premises but did not know to whom. Id., 618–19. The defendant undertook
          efforts to determine the identity of the new owner and began stockpiling
          funds for purposes of paying rent once the owner was identified. Id. The
          defendant learned the identity of the new owner only when that owner
          served a notice to quit on the defendant. Id., 619. At that point, the defendant
          offered to pay all past due rent using its stockpiled funds. Id. We determined
          that the defendant’s stockpiling of rent while it sought to determine the
          identity of its new landlord demonstrated a good faith intent to comply with
          the lease, explaining that ‘‘[s]etting aside . . . or stockpiling funds in the
          event they became due contraindicates any intentional or purposeful failure
          to pay rent . . . .’’ (Emphasis added.) Id., 634. This holding has little rele-
          vance in the present case, in which the defendants plainly knew the identity
          of their landlord but nonetheless decided to stockpile funds in lieu of paying
          rent that had already become due under the undisputed terms of the lease.
July 20, 2021             CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                        Page 19