Opinion
No. CV 08-5023692 S
August 12, 2009
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON SECOND MOTION TO STRIKE
In this matter a claim on a judgment is made. The defendant filed an answer and asserted a special defense lying in laches. The plaintiff has moved to strike the special defense claiming in part that this is an action of law and the defense of laches cannot be raised to such an action but only lies against a claim for equitable relief. As noted this case is a simple suit on a judgment. It notes that a bank secured a judgment to recover principal, interest, reasonable attorneys fees and costs; for value the judgment was assigned to the plaintiff. The body of the complaint sets forth an action at law and does not seek equitable relief or assert a claim on equity. The complaint's claim for relief seeks to enforce the judgment and lies in four paragraphs: (1) monetary damages, (2) postjudgment interest at the legal judgment rate, (3) costs, and (4) such other relief as the court deems just and equitable.
The fourth paragraph of the claim for relief cannot be categorized as a claim for equitable relief properly understood. In Giulietti v. Giulietti, 65 Conn.App. 813, 859 the court said that a party seeking equitable relief shall specifically demand it as such. In Florian v. Lenge, 91 Conn.App. 268, 282, 283 (2005) the court discussed whether the defense of laches would be against the complaint in that case. The court noted that in Florian the plaintiff's complaint like the one here did not ask for equitable relief. The demand for relief asked for (1) damages, (2) reasonable attorneys fees, (3) interest, (4) costs of the action, and (5) such other and further relief as the court deems just and proper. The Florian court said the first four claims for relief do not seek equitable relief and the fifth claim for relief, citing Giulietti, is not a specific demand for equitable relief but rather merely permits the court to fashion a remedy as is just and equitable if no remedy at law is available. The court noted that the defendant argued that the plaintiff really sought equitable relief but also said the defendant did not indicate the manner in which this was done. The Florian court went on to hold that since the action before it did not make a claim in equity and did not ask for equitable relief, the defendant could not make a defense of laches since such a defense only lies against an action or claim in equity and not against an action at law. Florian sets forth long-standing Connecticut law, see Well v. Poulsen, 121 Conn. 281 (1936); Sangivanni v. Floryan, 158 Conn. 467, 474 (1969). This comports with the law in other jurisdictions, see 51 Am.Jur.2d, "Limitation of Actions," Section 8 which discusses "Laches," at one point saying: "Because the statute of limitations rather than the doctrine of laches, is applicable to a claim that is legal rather than equitable, laches may not bar a legal claim if the applicable statute of limitations has not run."
Applying the foregoing the court is constrained to grant the motion to strike. As noted the complaint itself asserts an action of law. The first four claims for relief make no claim for equitable relief and the fifth paragraph, like the fifth claim for relief in Florian cannot be categorized as a demand for equitable relief for the same reasons mentioned in that case.
In the special defense it is asserted laches applies because the suit "is an attempt to lengthen the time to execute a judgment which is over (20) twenty years." But § 52-598 of the general statutes allows an action on a judgment to be brought within (25) twenty-five years of securing the judgment. Thus the applicable statute of limitations has not run so the court cannot construe the complaint as being based on some notion of equitable tolling.
For the foregoing reasons the motion to strike is granted.