Summary
The Connecticut Superior Court addressed a motion to strike claims arising from alleged lead-paint poisoning in two rental properties. The court denied the motion based on misjoinder and ordered the actions severed, while granting or denying challenges to individual claims for nuisance, abnormally dangerous activity, warranty of habitability, quiet enjoyment, and CUTPA violations.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Bellisle timely raised the alleged misjoinder of the claims arising from the two separate tenancies.
- Whether the court should sever the claims involving the two properties rather than strike the complaint for misjoinder.
- Whether the complaint adequately pleaded the challenged causes of action for absolute nuisance, liability based on an abnormally dangerous activity, breach of the implied warranty of habitability, breach of quiet enjoyment, and violation of CUTPA.
- Whether the notice-based challenge to count one remained before the court after Bellisle advised that it was not being pursued.
Holdings
- An objection to misjoinder must be raised in a timely manner; Bellisle's motion, filed fourteen months after the complaint was returned and after substantial procedural activity and discovery, was untimely.
- The claims arising from the two separate properties should be severed and tried as two cases rather than stricken for misjoinder.
- The complaint did not state a legally sufficient claim for absolute nuisance based on the alleged lead-paint condition.
- Lead paint was not alleged to constitute an abnormally dangerous activity sufficient to support the challenged claim.
- The complaint sufficiently stated a claim for breach of the implied warranty of habitability at the pleading stage.
- The challenged claim for breach of quiet and peaceful enjoyment was legally insufficient under the circumstances alleged.
- The complaint sufficiently stated a CUTPA claim at the pleading stage.
Key quotations
“Misjoinder is a defect which could and should have been raised in a timely fashion.” (6204)
“Therefore, the court sua sponte orders these two actions severed and tried as two cases rather than one.” (6204)
Factual background
Jermaine Wilson, a minor proceeding through a parent, alleged that he became lead poisoned while residing at two different properties. He allegedly lived at 165 Clark Street in Hartford from August 1991 through June 1993, and at 12 Hanmer Street in East Hartford from June 1993 through January 1994. Richard Bellisle owned the Hanmer Street property, while Joseph and Charlene Dakers owned the Clark Street property. The complaint asserted sixteen counts, eight against Bellisle and eight against the Dakers.
Procedural history
The minor plaintiff, through a parent, sued the owners of two residences for alleged lead poisoning arising from separate tenancies. Bellisle filed a request to revise in April 1995, participated in discovery, sought an extension to file a motion to strike in March 1996, and filed the motion on April 26, 1996. The court denied the misjoinder challenge, sua sponte severed the two actions, and granted or denied the remaining grounds as to individual counts.