DocketNumber: No. CV 960329778S
Citation Numbers: 1996 Conn. Super. Ct. 6265, 17 Conn. L. Rptr. 682
Judges: MELVILLE, J. CT Page 6266
Filed Date: 10/4/1996
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
Plaintiff's motion to strike should be granted. Neither the set-off nor the counterclaim set forth a sum certain or one which is ascertainable. Consequently, such claim fails to comply with the rule that the set off debt must not be unliquidated. See,General Consolidated, Ltd. v. Rutnick Sons, Inc., 4 Conn. Cir 581, 586 (1967), and Pellegrino v. Wirth, Case Base 2115. Furthermore, the defendant's allegations, as pled, fail to fairly permit the plaintiff to determine if the debt claimed by the defendant arises out of the same transaction alleged in the complaint or whether the claim is one of set off or counterclaim. This is a fatal defect. See. P.B. sec. 116; Peters Production,Inc. v. Dawson,
It matters not that the defendant alleges that the claim involves the same parties and the same types of claims if the opposing party cannot ascertain from the pleadings or from reasonable inferences therefrom whether the debt in question is unliquidated and that it arose out of the transaction in question (or one of them). As pled, the defendant's allegations do neither. Accordingly, plaintiff's motion to strike the set-off and counterclaim is hereby GRANTED.
MELVILLE, J.