53 hits, 71 minutes
Since the counterclaim is permitted for some purposes, the matter should be allowed to proceed. Accord, Wells Fargo Bank v. Lewis, Superior Court, judicial district of Fairfield, Doc. No. CV 07-5006088 S (February 18, 2010, Maiocco, J.T.R.). - See more at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ct-superior-court/1538511.html#sthash.OmrbBL63.dpuf
______________________________________________________________________
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ct-superior-court/1538511.html
HSBC USA v. Marinete Benevides
Superior Court of Connecticut.
HSBC Bank USA v. Marinete Benevides
CV095021390S
Decided: January 3, 2011
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
- See more at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ct-superior-court/1554154.html#sthash.sN0vKyon.dpuf
Superior Court of Connecticut. HSBC USA v. Marinete Benevides HSBC Bank USA v. Marinete Benevides CV095021390S Decided: January 3, 2011
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STRIKE FACTUAL BACKGROUND -
See more at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ct-superior-court/1554154.html#sthash.sN0vKyon.dpuf____________________________________________________________
court/1554154.html#sthash.sN0vKyon.dpuf
III SPECIAL DEFENSE THREE (UNCLEAN HANDS)
The third special defense, like the second, incorporates the facts from the first defense and asserts the doctrine of unclean hands. Specifically, the defendants allege that the plaintiff “wilfully and with intent to injure” did not provide them with written notice of the interest rate adjustment even though this was required under § 4(F) of the note. The plaintiff moves to strike the third special defense on the ground that the defendants allege a legal conclusion. “A motion to strike is properly granted if the complaint alleges mere conclusions of law that are unsupported by the facts alleged.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Fort Trumbull Conservancy, LLC v. Alves, 262 Conn. 480, 498, 815 A.2d 1188 (2003). The mere allegation that one's conduct was “wilful,” without any supporting facts, is a legal conclusion subject to a motion to strike. See Wells Fargo Bank v. Lewis, Superior Court, judicial district of Fairfield, Docket No. 07 5006088 (February 18, 2010, Maiocco, J.T.R.) (“[t]he defendant's allegation that the plaintiff engaged in ‘wilful misconduct’ is a legally conclusory statement, and cannot assist the court in determining whether facts exist which, if proved, would show that the plaintiff acted wilfully”); Connecticut Environmental Associates, Inc. v. Resources Recovery Authority, Superior Court, judicial district of New Haven, Docket No. CV 96 0393991 (July 23, 1997, Zoarski, J.) (20 Conn. L. Rptr. 174, 176 n.3) (allegations that conduct was “wanton or wilful” were legal conclusions); Pascarelli v. Corning Clinical Laboratories, Inc., Superior Court, judicial district of Danbury, Docket No. 325312 (March 25, 1997, Moraghan, J.) (19 Conn. L. Rptr. 82, 84) (“solely alleging that the defendant's conduct was ‘wilful,’ merely states a legal conclusion, not an allegation of fact”). - See more at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ct-superior-court/1554154.html#sthash.sN0vKyon.dpuf
