DocketNumber: No. CV94 0310324S
Citation Numbers: 1996 Conn. Super. Ct. 1740
Judges: WEST, J.
Filed Date: 3/1/1996
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/17/2021
On June 2, 1994, the defendant Carl Coppola filed his second amended answer in which he alleges two special defenses of civil conspiracy and unclean hands. Coppola alleges that the partners were in negotiations with the CARC for final settlement CT Page 1741 of the loan, when Ernest Trefz purchased the note and loan documents and assigned the instruments to the plaintiff as trustee for Ernest Trefz, unbeknownst and without the consent of all the partners. Coppola further alleges that the default was not caused by Coppola's failure to fulfill his obligations, but rather because of a conspiracy between Joan and Ernest Trefz to divest Coppola of his interests in the property and partnership. Coppola also alleges that such actions constitute unclean hands on the part of the plaintiff.
On December 7, 1994, Coppola claimed this action to the jury list. The plaintiff filed a motion to strike Coppola's claim to the jury docket on March 15, 1995, along with a memorandum of law in support. Coppola filed a memorandum in opposition on June 8, 1995.
"[A] motion to strike is the proper method by which to strike a claim from the jury docket." Centerbank v. Gall, Superior Court, judicial district of Fairfield at Bridgeport, Docket No. 399624 (June 13, 1995, Maiocco, J.).
The plaintiff contends that the defendant has no right to have his special defenses tried to a jury because a foreclosure action is essentially equitable. Coppola argues that the legal issues raised in his special defenses outweigh the equitable nature of the foreclosure proceeding.
"Article first, 19, . . . provides for the right to a jury trial in cases that are substantially similar to cases for which the right to a jury trial existed at common law in 1818. . . . Because at common law only legal claims were tried to a jury, the state constitutional right to a jury trial does not extend to equitable claims." (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Associated Investment Co. v. WilliamsAssociates,
Coppola has not filed a counterclaim, but only special defenses of civil conspiracy and unclean hands. The supreme court has stated that "[t]here is no such thing as a civil action for conspiracy. The action is for damages caused by acts committed pursuant to a formed conspiracy rather than by the conspiracy itself." Marshak v. Marshak,
Similarly, in Centerbank v. Fazzone, Superior Court, judicial district of Litchfield, Docket No. 066477 (October 19, 1995, Pickett, J.) the court stated that "[i]n the present action, the special defenses raised are ancillary to the foreclosure claim and therefore on an equal basis to the foreclosure action. In addition, the special defenses are, in essence, a challenge to the foreclosure action and are therefore equitable." Furthermore, "[a] defendant cannot by the assertion of defenses and counterclaims which are `legal' in nature, convert a foreclosure case from its essential equitable nature to a legal cause of action thereby requiring a jury trial."People's Bank v. Podd, Superior Court, judicial district of Fairfield at Bridgeport, Docket No. 287559 (September 7, 1993, Leheny, J.); see also Bank of New Haven v. Liner, Superior Court, judicial district of Ansonia/Milford, Docket No. 034516 CT Page 1743 (November 9, 1993, Curran, J.); Connecticut National Bank v.Grella Family Investment Partnership, Superior Court, judicial district of Fairfield at Bridgeport, Docket No. 292814 (November 8, 1993, Leheny, J.); Continental Bank v. Willard Square, Superior Court, judicial district of Hartford/New Britain at Hartford, Docket No. 389097 (April 23, 1993, Aurigemma, J.,
Accordingly, the court finds that Coppola's special defenses are essentially equitable, and therefore, the plaintiff's motion to strike Coppola's claim to the jury docket is granted.
WEST, J.