Szabo v. Scopp, No. Cv94 04 65 55s (Aug. 31, 1994) , 1994 Conn. Super. Ct. 8741 ( 1994 )

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE: MOTION TO STRIKE The plaintiff has filed a Motion to Strike the defendant's response to his Demand for Disclosure of Defense. He alleges that the disclosure as filed is not a valid defense and therefore his Motion to Strike should be granted.

The defendant alleges that he has disclosed appropriate defense and, in addition, a Motion to Strike is not a valid pleading under the circumstances.

This is a foreclosure action. Subsequent to a demand being made, the plaintiff had filed a Motion for Default for failing to disclose a defense. The defendant has filed what he claims to be a defense, namely, that the plaintiff-mortgagee has failed to comply with the licensing requirements of the Connecticut General Statutes, in particular § 36-224a, et seq.

Section 152 of the Practice Book sets forth the circumstances under which a Motion to Strike may be filed. Nowhere therein can there be found any reference to a Disclosure of Defense. "Therefore, a motion to strike is not a proper vehicle to test the sufficiency of the disclosure of defense filed pursuant to section 236." Deutsche Bank C. V. Hermann, 4 CSCR 771 (Cioffi, J.). "Moreover, courts have uniformly refused to address the legal sufficiency of a disclosure of defense brought pursuant to section 236. The plaintiff may not move to strike until a defendant actually asserts it." Dohn v. Simone, CV93-0129505, Stamford-Norwalk Judicial District, Lewis, J.

The Motion to Strike is denied.

The Court

Curran, J.