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
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4900130/boccanfuso-v-daghoghi/ ↗

Full Text

2,158 chars

ings, and its construction [is] often . . . influenced by
          its context’’; (internal quotation marks omitted) State
          v. Newton, 330 Conn. 344, 362, 194 A.3d 272 (2018); and
          that observation is fitting here. Upon reflection, it is
          clear to us that the definition of wilfulness connoting
          an injurious intent, although apt in other contexts,
          serves no productive role in the equitable nonforfeiture
          analysis. A tenant’s nonpayment can be wilful within
          the meaning of the equitable nonforfeiture doctrine in
          the absence of any ‘‘design’’ on the tenant’s part to cause
          harm to the landlord; indeed, most summary process
          actions based on nonpayment involve tenants who
          intend no harm but simply find themselves without the
          financial means to meet their obligations. We therefore
          disavow the definition of wilfulness contained in the
          footnote in 19 Perry Street, LLC, to the extent that it
          would require a finding of injurious intent to trigger a
          finding of wilfulness under the equitable nonforfei-
          ture doctrine.
             The defendants intentionally withheld rent payments
          unaccompanied by a good faith intent to comply with
          the lease or a good faith dispute over the meaning of
          the lease. As previously discussed, the trial court found
          that the defendants’ purported environmental concerns
          were ‘‘pretextual’’ and that their actual reasons for with-
          holding rent were their dissatisfaction with the delays
          in their renovations to the premises—delays not attrib-
          utable to the plaintiffs’ conduct—and the difficulty in
          paying rent to both their previous landlords and the
          plaintiffs. Under these facts, it is clear that the trial
          court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to grant
          the defendants equitable relief from forfeiture.
                The judgment of the Appellate Court is affirmed.
                In this opinion the other justices concurred.

Other Sections in This Document (50)

Full Text