DocketNumber: No. CV98-0078393
Citation Numbers: 1999 Conn. Super. Ct. 13967
Judges: PICKETT, JUDGE TRIAL REFEREE.
Filed Date: 10/22/1999
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 7/5/2016
On June 24, 1999, the plaintiff filed a motion to strike six counts of the counterclaim on the grounds that the counterclaim does not attack the making, validity, or enforcement of the note and mortgage, fails to relate to the subject of the plaintiff's complaint, fails to comply with Practice Book §
"Whenever any party wishes to contest . . . the legal sufficiency of the allegations of any . . . counterclaim . . . or of any one or more counts thereof, to state a claim upon which relief can be granted . . . that party may do so by filing a motion to strike the contested pleading or part thereof." Practice Book §
The plaintiff moves to strike all six counts of the counterclaim on the ground that the counterclaim fails to relate to the subject of the plaintiff's complaint. The plaintiff argues that the counterclaim is insufficient because the facts alleged therein are unrelated to the note and mortgage involved in the plaintiff's claim. The defendant responds that the allegations of the counterclaim are related to the plaintiff's claim because the plaintiff was attempting to enforce its rights under the mortgage when it entered the defendant's premises.
"In any action for legal or equitable relief, any defendant may file counterclaims against any plaintiff . . . provided that each such counterclaim . . . arises out of the transaction or one of the transactions which is the subject of the plaintiff's complaint . . . ." Practice Book §
The defendant has failed to plead any facts establishing that the matters alleged in the counterclaim are in any way related to the controversy in the plaintiff's original complaint.
The defendant, in its memorandum of law in opposition to the motion to strike, argues that the claims arise out of the same transaction because the plaintiff was attempting to enforce its rights under the mortgage when it entered defendant's premises. These facts, however, were not pleaded in the defendant's counterclaim. Because the court is limited to the facts alleged in the pleadings, the facts alleged only in the defendant's memorandum of law may not be considered. Furthermore, "[t]he court need not indulge the speculative possibility that facts alleged in the counterclaim may arise from the same transaction as that which underlies the original complaint if the defendant fails to describe such a connection in his pleading." BusinessBrokers of North America, Inc. v. Sillman, Superior Court, judicial district of Hartford-New Britain at New Britain, Docket No. 443735 (January 3, 1992, Sheldon, J.). The plaintiff's motion to strike the counterclaim is granted because the defendant failed to plead facts sufficient to establish a counterclaim arising out of the transaction which is the subject of the plaintiff's complaint.
So Ordered.
THE COURT
WALTER N. PICKETT, JR., J.T.R.