DocketNumber: No. CV95 032 67 59 S
Citation Numbers: 1996 Conn. Super. Ct. 5735
Judges: WEST, J.
Filed Date: 8/14/1996
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 7/5/2016
The defendants filed their answer and five special defenses on March 22, 1996. In their special defenses the defendants allege laches, violation of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, inequitable conduct, estoppel, and failure to act in a commercially reasonable manner.
On June 13, 1996, the plaintiff filed a motion to strike the defendants special defenses on the ground of legal insufficiency. The defendants filed a memorandum of law in opposition on June 26, 1996, to which the plaintiff replied on July 19, 1996.
"The purpose of a motion to strike is to contest . . . the legal sufficiency of the allegations of [the pleading] . . . to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. In ruling on a motion to strike, the court is limited to the facts alleged in the [pleading]. The court must construe the facts in the [pleading] most favorably to the [nonmoving party]." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Novametrix Medical Systems v. BOC Group, Inc.,
The plaintiff contends that the defendants' first special defense of laches is legally insufficient in that the defendants have not alleged an inexcusable delay or prejudice. The defendants argue that such defense goes toward the amount the plaintiff would be entitled to in a deficiency judgment.
"Laches consists of an inexcusable delay which prejudices the CT Page 5737 defendant. . . . Laches consists of two elements. First, there must have been a delay that was inexcusable, and, second, that delay must have prejudiced the defendant. . . . Absent prejudice to the defendant, the mere lapse of time does not constitute laches." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.)Giordano v. Giordano,
Clearly, the defendants have not alleged any facts regarding any inexcusable delay, or that such delay resulted in prejudice to the defendant. Furthermore, if the defendants are concerned about a future delay in regard to a possible deficiency judgment they are not without remedy. "Because a mortgage foreclosure is an equitable proceeding . . . a defendant who is demonstrably prejudiced by a plaintiff's delay in filing a motion for a deficiency judgment may invoke the equitable defense of laches." (Citation omitted.) Baybank Connecticut, N.A. v. Thumlert,
The defendants also allege that delay by the plaintiff in bringing this action constitutes a violation of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
"[E]very contract carries an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing requiring that neither party do anything that will injure the right of the other to receive the benefits of theagreement." (Emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted.) Home Insurance Co. v. Aetna Life Casualty Co.,
While every contract does contain an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, including the note and mortgage at issue, the plaintiff has not alleged any facts showing a delay, nor how any such delay has injured the defendants' rights to receive the benefits of the agreement.
In special defenses three through five the defendants allege inequitable conduct, estoppel and failure to act in a commercially reasonable manner based on delay in bringing the action and failure to accept a deed in lieu of foreclosure.
However, as discussed above, the defendants have not alleged any facts showing a delay, and further the offer of a deed is not equivalent to a judgment of foreclosure. Bank of BostonConnecticut v. Platz,
Accordingly, the plaintiff's motion to strike the defendants' special defenses is granted.
WEST, J.