DocketNumber: No. CV98 34 99 56 S
Citation Numbers: 1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 9497
Judges: NADEAU, JUDGE.
Filed Date: 7/15/1998
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 7/5/2016
"[S]pecial defenses have been recognized as valid special defenses where they were legally sufficient and addressed the making, validity or enforcement of the mortgage and/or note. . . . The rationale behind this is that . . . special defenses which are not limited to the making, validity or enforcement of the note or mortgage fail to assert any connection with the subject matter of the foreclosure action and as such do not arise out of the same transaction as the foreclosure action." Bank of Hartfordv. Demas, Superior Court, judicial district of Fairfield at Bridgeport, Docket No. 313759 (May 9, 1997, West, J.). "[D]efenses to foreclosure are recognized when they attack the note itself rather than some behavior of the mortgagor." Id.
Both the special defenses of fraud and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing have been recognized as valid special defenses to a foreclosure action. See, id. (fraud can serve as a defense to foreclosure); Chief v. Sargent, Superior Court, judicial district of Fairfield at Bridgeport, Docket No. 330307 (August 21, 1996, West, J.) (breach of an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing has been recognized as a valid special defense to a foreclosure action). Moreover, the allegations in the special defenses relate to the making of the underlying note when viewed in the light most CT Page 9499 favorable to the defendants, and are legally sufficient to withstand the plaintiff's motion to strike. For the same reasons, the plaintiffs argument that the first and second counterclaims should be struck as legally insufficient should also be denied.
NADEAU, JUDGE.