******************************************************

The ‘‘officially released’’ date that appears near the

beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will

be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the

date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative

date for the beginning of all time periods for filing

postopinion motions and petitions for certification is

the ‘‘officially released’’ date appearing in the opinion.

In no event will any such motions be accepted before

the ‘‘officially released’’ date.

All opinions are subject to modification and technical

correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the

event of discrepancies between the electronic version

of an opinion and the print version appearing in the

Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the

latest print version is to be considered authoritative.

The syllabus and procedural history accompanying

the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official

Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service

and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes

of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of

the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal

Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut.

******************************************************
CARRIAGE HOUSE I-ENFIELD ASSOCIATION, INC. v.

CAROL A. JOHNSTON ET AL.

(AC36997)

Beach, Keller and Mihalakos, Js.

Argued May 18—officially released October 6, 2015

(Appeal from Superior Court, judicial district of

Tolland, Mullins, J.)

J. Christopher Kervick, for the appellants

(defendants).

Ronald J. Barba, for the appellee (plaintiff).
Opinion

KELLER, J. The defendant, Carol A. Johnston,1

appeals from the trial court’s judgment of foreclosure

by sale of her condominium unit in favor of the plaintiff,

Carriage House I-Enfield Association, Inc., as well as

the court’s judgment denying her motion forreargument

and reconsideration. On appeal, the defendant claims

that (1) the court improperly failed to grant her relief

under an impossibility defense, and (2) the court erred

when it concluded that an allegedly illegal and unenforceable contract between the plaintiff and the defendant subsequently was rendered legal and enforceable.

We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The following facts, as found by the court, and procedural history are relevant to the defendant’s appeal. In

2003, the defendant acquired townhouse condominium

unit number 92 (unit 92), together with a garage and

parking space number 92, located at the Carriage House

I-Enfield Condominiums in Enfield. On June 10, 2010,

the plaintiff’s board of directors (board) held a meeting

at which it unanimously passed a motion authorizing

the expansion of the decks attached to all of the units

in the plaintiff’s condominium complex.2 The approved

plan gave permission to unit owners who wanted to

expand their decks to choose one of four possible layouts for their completed expansions. The defendant

ultimately decided to expand unit 92’s deck via one of

those options.

On June 15, 2010, the president of the board submitted an application on behalf of the plaintiff for a special

use permit with the Enfield Planning Department. On

July 8, 2010, the Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission (commission) approved the plaintiff’s application

for a special use permit. On July 29, 2010, the commission’s secretary officially granted the special use permit

to the plaintiff and certified the commission’s approval

of the plaintiff’s deck expansion plan.

Upon receiving the special use permit, the plaintiff

and its condominium unit owners, including the defendant, commenced planning the deck expansion projects. On April 6, 2011, the plaintiff and the defendant

entered into a written contract regarding the expansion

of unit 92’s deck. Most notably, the contract expressly

required the defendant to construct a privacy wall on

the southwest side of unit 92’s expanded deck. Further,

the contract provided, inter alia, that the defendant

would construct stairs leading from the deck to the

common area behind the units, and that the defendant

would reimburse the plaintifffor any losses, costs, fines,

fees, attorney’s fees, and expenses incurred as a result

of the deck expansion.

Pursuant to the contract, the defendant applied for

a building permit with the commission on April 11, 2011,

so that she could carry out unit 92’s deck expansion.
The commission received the defendant’s application,

but informed her that it would not approve a privacy

wall on unit 92’s deck. Accordingly, the defendant

requested that the commission omit the privacy wall

from her application. An Enfield zoning enforcement

officer subsequently sent a notice to the plaintiff in

which she stated that the commission had not approved

the privacy wall as a component of unit 92’s deck expansion in the plaintiff’s July, 2010 special use permit.

Shortly thereafter, the plaintiff sent the zoning enforcement officer a letter in which it asserted that it would

allow the defendant to expand unit 92’s deck only if it

included a privacy wall. In this letter, the plaintiff also

requested that Enfield not issue a building permit to

the defendant until a permit for the construction of a

privacy wall on unit 92’s deck could be issued. In

response to this letter, the director of the commission

sent the plaintiff a reply letter in which he stated that

the plaintiff would have to reapply to obtain a permit

to construct a privacy wall on unit 92’s deck because

the commission had not approved such a wall in the

special use permit that it had granted to the plaintiff

in July, 2010.

The defendant obtained a building permit to expand

unit 92’s deck on May 16, 2011, which did not include

approval of a privacy wall. On the same date, the defendant sent a letter to the plaintiff stating that she had

obtained a building permit and that she would carry

out the expansion of unit 92’s deck without constructing

a privacy wall. Two days later, the plaintiff responded

by a letter in which it asserted that the defendant’s

failure to attach a privacy wall to her deck would constitute a breach of the April 6, 2011 deck expansion contract. In this May 18, 2011 letter, the plaintiff also

indicated that it could impose fines on the defendant

and remove and reconstruct unit 92’s deck at the defendant’s expense if she failed to construct the deck with

the privacy wall. Nevertheless, the defendant expanded

unit 92’s deck without including a privacy wall, completing it at some point before August 3, 2011. In addition

to not installing the privacy wall, the defendant failed

to comply with several other requirements set forth in

the deck expansion contract. Specifically, the defendant’s deck did not comply with the deck expansion

contract in that the deck railing extended beyond the

contract specifications, the flashing was improperly

installed, and the deck stairs did not meet the contract specifications.

On June 14, 2011, while the defendant was carrying

out the expansion of unit 92’s deck, the board applied

for a special use permit to construct privacy walls for

certain units’ deck expansion projects, including the

project for unit 92. The commission unanimously

approved the plaintiff’s application for a special use

permit to install the privacy walls on July 21, 2011, but

the plaintiff did not record the special use permit until
February 1, 2012. On August 3, 2011, the plaintiff sent

a letter to the defendant informing her that the commission had granted the plaintiff a special use permit so

that she legally could install a privacy wall on unit 92’s

deck. The plaintiff also stated in this letter that the

defendant would have until August 12, 2011, to choose

one of two options regarding unit 92’s deck: (1) she

could install the privacy wall as agreed; or (2) she could

return the deck to its original state.

The defendant failed to respond to the plaintiff’s letter. On August 19, 2011, the plaintiff sent the defendant

another letter informing her that the board would hold

a meeting on the matter on the evening of August 31,

2011, which the defendant was advised to attend. On

August 30, 2011, the defendant mailed a letter to the

plaintiff in which she stated that she refused to attend

the scheduled meeting and that ‘‘the only resolution of

this matterlies in the courts.’’ The board held the August

31, 2011 meeting and unanimously passed a motion to

begin fining the defendant at a rate of $25 per day for

every day that she did not pursue one of the two options

set forth in the plaintiff’s August 3, 2011 letter.3 The

plaintiff conveyed this decision to the defendant in a

letter dated September 20, 2011. In this letter, the plaintiff notified the defendant that she would have until

October 5, 2011, either to install the privacy wall or to

restore unit 92’s deck to its original state before the

plaintiff would begin fining her $25 per day.4 The defendant failed to comply and did not elect either option.

As a result, the plaintiff proceeded to fine her at a

rate of $25 per day beginning on October 6, 2011. The

plaintiff also eventually installed a freestanding privacy

wall in between the decks of unit 92 and unit 93.

In November, 2011, the defendant brought an equitable action against the plaintiff seeking, inter alia, a

declaratory judgment that the deck expansion contract

was unenforceable. At a May 10, 2012 meeting held by

its board, it unanimously passed a resolution to file a

counterclaim against the defendant in her November,

2011 action. On June 1, 2012, the board held another

meeting, which the defendant and her husband, Robert

E. Johnston, attended with counsel. At this meeting,

the board decided to bring a foreclosure action against

the defendant for her failure to pay fines accruing from

her noncompliance with the April 6, 2011 deck expansion contract. The plaintiff subsequently brought this

action against the defendant.

In its operative complaint, the plaintiff claimed in

count one that the defendant’s failure to pay the fines

assessed against her for failure to comply with the deck

expansion contract warranted a judgment of foreclosure on unit 92 pursuant to General Statutes § 47-258.5

In count two of the complaint, the plaintiff claimed

that the defendant was liable for breach of the deck

expansion contract and sought damages due to the fact
that it had to design, plan, and construct a freestanding

privacy wall on its own as a result of the defendant’s

breach.6In her answer, the defendant raised the following two special defenses: (1) the deck expansion contract was illegal because it contained provisions that

were noncompliant with Enfield’s zoning regulations;

and (2) the plaintiff had coerced the defendant to enter

into this allegedly illegal contract. On August 9, 2013,

the plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment as

to liability. The court, Sferrazza, J., denied this motion

on September 23, 2013.

At a bench trial in February, 2014, the court, Mullins,

J., examined evidence and heard testimony pertaining

to, inter alia, the deck expansion contract, the zoning

issues that arose with the commission, and the plaintiff’s efforts to collect fines from the defendant for her

failure to comply with the contract. Neither party

requested a closing argument. On May 30, 2014, the

court issued a memorandum of decision in which it

ruled in favor of the plaintiff, finding that the deck

expansion contract was valid and enforceable. Accordingly, the court rendered judgment of foreclosure by

sale of unit 92.

On June 17, 2014, the defendant filed a motion for

reargument and reconsideration pursuant to Practice

Book § 11-11, in which she argued that performance

under the deck expansion contract was impossible

because she had no legal authority to expand unit 92’s

deck or to install the privacy wall. Specifically, she

argued that she did not have such authority because

the real property upon which the deck and privacy

wall were constructed was a common element of the

condominium conplex, meaning that neither she nor

the plaintiff legally could possess such land exclusively

and make improvements upon it without first obtaining

consent from all unit owners having a possessory interest in it. She also argued that the deck expansion contract was illegal because her performance under the

contract was not within her legal authority.

The court denied the defendant’s motion. It concluded in its order that ‘‘there is no need for reargument

and . . . the claims the defendant raises in her motion

were waived prior to trial.’’ Further, the court stated,

‘‘[i]ndeed, priorto the start of trial, the defendant agreed

that the [plaintiff] had the ability to enter into these

types of contracts regarding the deck expansion.’’ This

appeal followed. Additional facts will be set forth as

necessary.

I

The defendant focuses a significant amount of her

appellate brief on the court’s treatment of her claim of

the impossibility of performance of the deck expansion

contract underlying the present foreclosure action. This

claim, which the defendant also interchangeably
describes as one of contract illegality, is based on the

plaintiff’s lack of authority to enter into the deck expansion contract without a vote of the unit owners, as

required by the Carriage House I-Enfield condominium

declaration (declaration). Specifically, the defendant

argues that the court: (1) abused its discretion in denying her motion for reargument and reconsideration on

her impossibility claim; (2) committed plain error by

concluding that she had waived any impossibility

defense; and (3) improperly failed to consider her

impossibility claim. The plaintiff argues that the defendant failed to raise distinctly an impossibility defense

or this aspect of the contract’s alleged illegality, both

prior to and during trial, and, therefore, the court did

not abuse its discretion in ultimately denying the defendant’s motion for reargument and reconsideration on

these issues. We agree with the plaintiff and address

each of the defendant’s arguments related to her impossibility claim in turn.

A

We first address the defendant’s claim that the court

abused its discretion by denying her motion for reargument and reconsideration relating to her claim of impossibility. We conclude that the court did not abuse its

discretion by denying her motion.

We begin by setting forth the appropriate standard

of review for this claim. We review a trial court’s decision to deny a litigant’s motion for reargument and

reconsideration for an abuse of discretion. Gibbs v.

Spinner, 103 Conn. App. 502, 506–507, 930 A.2d 53

(2007); Stein v. Horton, 99 Conn. App. 477, 488, 914

A.2d 606 (2007). ‘‘[A]s with any discretionary action of

the trial court, appellate review requires every reasonable presumption in favor of the action, and the ultimate

issue for us is whetherthe trial court could have reasonably concluded as it did. . . . In addition, where a

motion is addressed to the discretion of the court, the

burden of proving an abuse of that discretion rests

with the appellant.’’(Internal quotation marks omitted.)

Durkin Village Plainville, LLC v. Cunningham, 97

Conn. App. 640, 655, 905 A.2d 1256 (2006).

‘‘[R]eargument is proper when intended to demonstrate to the court that there is some . . . principle of

law which would have a controlling effect, and which

has been overlooked . . . .’’ (Internal quotation marks

omitted.) Stein v. Horton, supra, 99 Conn. App. 488.

Reargument is also meant for situations where ‘‘there

has been a misapprehension of facts.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Opoku v. Grant, 63 Conn. App.

686, 692, 778 A.2d 981 (2001). Reargument ‘‘may be used

to address alleged inconsistencies in the trial court’s

memorandum of decision as well as claims of law that

the [movant] claimed were not addressed by the court.

. . . [A] motion to reargue [however] is not to be used

as an opportunity to have a second bite of the apple
orto present additional cases or briefs which could have

been presented at the time of the original argument.’’

(Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.)

Id., 692–93.

The defendant has not met her burden of proving

that the court abused its discretion by denying her

motion for reargument and reconsideration. Specifically, she failed to establish that the court overlooked

a controlling principle of law or that it misapprehended

relevant facts in denying the motion. See Stein v. Horton, supra, 99 Conn. App. 488; Opoku v. Grant, supra, 63

Conn. App. 692. In her motion, the defendant primarily

argued that reargument was warranted because the evidence in the record, particularly provisions in the declaration, showed that neither she nor the plaintiff had

the legal authority to expand unit 92’s deck onto land

that was a limited common element and in which other

unit owners had possessory interests. Thus, she

asserted, it was impossible for herto perform the expansion of the deck without first obtaining permission from

all of the other unit owners who had possessory interests in the affected common elements. Further, she

claimed, this impossibility rendered the deck expansion

contract unenforceable and illegal.

Although the contentions in the defendant’s motion

for reargument and reconsideration might raise conceivably valid points, they amount to ‘‘too little, too

late.’’ C. R. Klewin Northeast, LLC v. Bridgeport, 282

Conn. 54, 89, 919 A.2d 1002 (2007). She had ample

opportunity to raise these impossibility and illegality

defenses distinctly in her pleading of two special

defenses in her answer,7 her pretrial memorandum,8 her

objection to the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment,9 and during the trial.10 With respect to the evidence that the defendant presented at trial, she claims

in her appellate brief that the court operated under a

misunderstanding as to the existence of her claim of

impossibility based on the lack of a vote of all unit

owners on the deck expansions. She alludes to the

following colloquy that took place before the plaintiff’s

first witness took the stand at trial:

‘‘The Court: If I understand you, you don’t want to

have to present evidence on [the plaintiff’s] ability to

enter into these types of contracts.

‘‘[The Plaintiff’s Counsel]: I don’t believe it has to. I

think the stipulation and the exhibits marked are all

now full exhibits.

‘‘The Court: What you see is separate from the

enforceability of this contract.

‘‘[The Plaintiff’s Counsel]: I do.

‘‘The Court: This particular contract.

‘‘[The Plaintiff’s Counsel]: I do. Whether or not that

contract is void as illegal, certainly that’s an area coun-
sel has a right to explore.

‘‘The Court: Do you have an objection to that?

‘‘[The Defendant’s Counsel]: Yes, Your Honor. I have

no objection as far as the presumption that [the plaintiff]

has the ability to enter into contracts, I would agree

with brother counsel.

‘‘The Court: That makes sense to me.’’

This colloquy, as well as a review ofthe trialtranscript

in its entirety, indicates that the court was justified

in denying the defendant’s motion for reargument and

reconsideration. Contrary to the defendant’s argument,

we are persuaded that the court reasonably could have

concluded that she had waived any impossibility or

illegality defense related to the plaintiff’s ability to enter

into contracts or her ability to expand her deck onto

common or limited common elements without a vote

of the other unit owners. See Durkin Village Plainville,

LLC v. Cunningham, supra, 97 Conn. App. 655. Not

only are we persuaded that the court properly acted

within its discretion in concluding that the defendant

waived that defense, but we also note that she failed

to raise it distinctly to the court at other points in the

proceedings, namely, in her special defenses, pretrial

motions, and trial memoranda.11 Further, we note that

the defendant did not proffer any evidence at trial

regarding what the declaration required with respect

to deck expansion and how the plaintiff may have acted

in derogation of it. The defendant’s motion for reargument and reconsideration, filed by an attorney other

than the attorney who represented her during the trial,

is a clear example of an attempt to have the proverbial

‘‘second bite of the apple,’’ and we reject it. Accordingly,

we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion

by denying the defendant’s motion for reargument and

reconsideration.

B

The defendant also argues that the court committed

plain error by concluding that she had waived the

impossibility defense related to the lack of a vote of

all unit owners to expand their decks. Specifically, the

defendant argues that the court committed plain error

by only addressing a single aspect of the defendant’s

illegality defense. The defendant claims that the court

improperly confined its analysis to whether the deck

expansion contract was illegal because of zoning deficiencies, without addressing whetherthe defendant had

a viable impossibility defense as a result of the lack of

a vote of all condominium unit owners. The plaintiff

argues that there was no plain error because, through

her answer and her objection to the plaintiff’s motion

for summary judgment, the defendant confined the

court’s analysis to her illegality defense as it related

to the contract’s noncompliance with Enfield’s zoning

regulations. We agree with the plaintiff and conclude
that the court did not commit plain error.

‘‘The plain error doctrine, which is codified in Practice Book § 60-5, is an extraordinary remedy used by

appellate courts to rectify errors committed at trial that,

although unpreserved, are of such monumental proportion that they threaten to erode our system of justice and

work a serious and manifest injustice on the aggrieved

party.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v.

Diaz, 302 Conn. 93, 101, 25 A.3d 594 (2011). This doctrine is premised on policy concerns, and it is only

available in situations where ‘‘the existence of the error

is so obvious that it affects the fairness and integrity

of and public confidence in the judicial proceedings.’’

(Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id. An appellant

seeking application of plain error doctrine must: (1)

establish that the trial court’s claimed error was so

clear and obvious that the court’s ruling should be

reversed; and (2) show that the ‘‘consequences of the

error are so grievous as to be fundamentally unfair or

manifestly unjust.’’(Emphasis added; internal quotation

marks omitted.) Crawford v. Commissioner of Correction, 294 Conn. 165, 205, 982 A.2d 620 (2009); see State

v. Coward, 292 Conn. 296, 306–307, 972 A.2d 691 (2009);

State v. Smith, 275 Conn. 205, 240, 881 A.2d 160 (2005).

The defendant attempts to couch her argument that

the court erred—by finding that she had waived her

impossibility defense at trial—in terms of plain error,

yet her argument does not necessitate the extraordinary

remedy’s application under these circumstances. Plain

error doctrine ‘‘is not . . . a rule of reviewability. It is

a rule of reversibility.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Diaz, supra, 302 Conn. 101; Crawford v.

Commissioner of Correction, supra, 294 Conn. 204.

Although the defendant, for the first time in her motion

for reargument and reconsideration and again in her

appellate brief, framed the deck expansion contract’s

performance as being part of her illegality defense

because such performance was carried out without first

obtaining other unit owners’ approval, she nonetheless

argues that the court committed plain error insofar as

it determined that these issues were part of an impossibility defense that had been waived. Both claims, however, are premised on the same lack of approval of the

deck expansions by a vote of all the unit owners in the

condominium complex. We conclude that, under the

circumstances of the present case, the defendant’s challenge—based on the court’s reasonable determination

of what issues properly were before it for its consideration—does not give rise to plain error concerns. Additionally, because we have concluded in part I A of this

opinion that the court properly declined to consider a

claim of impossibility that was not properly before it,

we readily reject a claim of plain error related to that

defense.

C
Next, the defendant claims that the court improperly

failed to address several arguments that were integral

to her claim that it was impossible for her to perform

under the dock expansion contract. The defendant

argues, for the first time in her appellate brief that: (1)

the court awarded the plaintifffines for her nonperformance as of October 6, 2011, despite the fact that the

special use permit allowing the construction of the privacy wall had not been recorded with the Enfield town

clerk’s office until February 1, 2012;12 (2) the privacy

wall specifications called for by the plaintiff and the

contract were adjusted several times after October 6,

2011, while the defendant was being fined for not building the wall;13 (3) the plaintiff built a freestanding privacy wall next to unit 92’s deck on July 31, 2012, but

still continued to fine the defendant after that date;

and (4) neither the defendant nor the plaintiff had an

exclusive ownership interest or right to use the property, upon which unit 92’s deck and accompanying privacy wall were to be constructed, without prior

approval from other unit owners.14

Although the defendant casts her arguments regarding this claim in terms of her alleged ‘‘impossibility’’

defense, we conclude that this claim pertains to damages and not to contract performance. We interpret the

court’s decision in denying the defendant’s motion for

reargument and reconsideration as being dispositive on

this issue. Although the defendant briefly referred to

the issue of damages in her objection to the plaintiff’s

motion for summary judgment and in her pretrial memorandum, she failed to offer sufficient evidence to alert

the court that she was disputing damages stemming

from the deck expansion contract. Aside from exhibits

and her counsel asking several questions during crossexamination of the plaintiff’s witnesses about the dates

when the plaintiff began fining the defendant and when

the special use permit forthe privacy wall was recorded

with the Enfield town clerk, the defendant did not

apprise the court of her specific argument that she was

disputing the plaintiff’s claim for damages.15 Further, in

her motion for reargument and reconsideration, the

defendant only focused her impossibility and illegality

claims on her lack of legal authority to construct a

privacy wall under the contract because of her not having prior approval of other unit owners. The defendant

did not raise any arguments about ‘‘impossibility’’ of

her performance due to changing specifications, the

plaintiff’s construction of a freestanding privacy wall,

or the commencement date of the fines. On the basis

of the court’s decision and its denial of the defendant’s

motion for reargument and reconsideration, it is clear

that the court considered the defendant’s defense to be

limited to the legality of the contract in light of the

Enfield zoning regulations.

On the basis of our review of the record, we agree
with court and, accordingly, decline to review the merits

of her claim concerning the proper award of damages

in this case. ‘‘It is well established that an appellate

court is under no obligation to consider a claim that is

not distinctly raised at the trial level . . . . [B]ecause

our review is limited to matters in the record, we [also]

will not address issues not decided by the trial court

. . . . The requirement that [a] claim be raised distinctly means that it must be so stated as to bring to

the attention of the court the precise matter on which

its decision is being asked . . . . The reason for the

rule is obvious: to permit a party to raise a claim on

appeal that has not been raised at trial—after it is too

late for the trial court . . . to address the claim—

would encourage trial by ambuscade, which is unfair to

both the trial court and the opposing party.’’ (Citations

omitted; emphasis in original; internal quotation marks

omitted.) Nelson v. Tradewind Aviation, LLC, 155

Conn. App. 519, 535, 111 A.3d 887, cert. denied, 316

Conn. 918, 113 A.3d 1016 (2015).

II

The defendant also takes issue with the court’s ruling

that the initially illegal deck expansion contract subsequently could be rendered legal and enforceable. The

plaintiff argues that the defendant’s illegality claim

lacks merit because, although the deck expansion contract’s requirement of a privacy wall on unit 92’s deck

was not entirely compliant with Enfield’s zoning regulations, the plaintiff could have obtained a variance, and

it eventually did obtain a special use permit from the

commission, both of which cured any alleged illegality

resulting from noncompliance with the zoning regulations. We agree with the plaintiff and conclude that the

court did not errin determining that the deck expansion

contract was legal and enforceable.

We begin by setting forth the appropriate standard

of review for the defendant’s claim. A trial court’s decision as to whether a contract is illegal and unenforceable involves a question of law which entails our

application of plenary review. Parente v. Pirozzoli, 87

Conn. App. 235, 245, 866 A.2d 629 (2005).

Contracts that are illegal may defy public policy, in

which case they are void and unenforceable. Reardon

v. Windswept Farm, LLC, 280 Conn. 153, 154–55, 159,

905 A.2d 1156 (2006); Hanks v. Powder Ridge Restaurant Corp., 276 Conn. 314, 326–27, 335–36, 885 A.2d 734

(2005); Konover Development Corp. v. Zeller, 228 Conn.

206, 231, 635A.2d 798 (1994). The question of‘‘[w]hether

a contract is enforceable or illegal is a question . . .

to be determined from all the facts and circumstances

of each case. Similarly . . . the question [of] whether

a contract is against public policy is [a] question of law

dependent on the circumstances of the particular case

. . . .’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Parente v.

Pirozzoli, supra, 87 Conn. App. 245. ‘‘As a general rule,
a court will [not] lend its assistance in any way toward

carrying out the terms of a contract, the inherent purpose of which is to violate the law . . . .’’ (Emphasis

in original; internal quotation marks omitted.) Dowling

v. Slotnik, 244 Conn. 781, 807, 712 A.2d 396, cert. denied

sub nom. Slotnik v. Considine, 525 U.S. 1017, 119 S.

Ct. 542, 142 L. Ed. 2d 451 (1998).

In Dowling, our Supreme Court examined the

enforceability of an employment contract between an

illegal alien and her employer and specifically whether

the agreement constituted a ‘‘contract of service’’ making the illegal alien an ‘‘employee’’ under the Workers’

Compensation Act, General Statutes § 31-275 et seq.

Dowling v. Slotnik, supra, 244 Conn. 806–13. Although

much of the court’s opinion dealt with jurisdiction and

statutory interpretation issues, the court devoted significant discussion to the employer’s claim that the

employment contract was illegal and unenforceable

because it had been tainted by the plaintiff’s illegal alien

status. Id. Most notably for our purposes, the court

opined in dicta that ‘‘it is in order to effectuate an

underlying public policy, rather than to sanction a party

seeking to enforce an ‘illegal’ contract, that courts

refuse to lend assistance to those who have contributed

to the illegality that taints the contract.’’ Id., 808. In

concluding that the employment agreement between

the plaintiff and her employer was not illegal as a matter

of law merely because of the plaintiff’s status as an

illegal alien, the court weighed broader public policy

purposes heavily in its analysis. Id., 790–96.16

Our Supreme Court dealt with the issue of whether

a new home construction contract was unenforceable

because it was noncompliant with the registration, disclosure, and contract language requirements in the New

Home Construction Contractors Act(act), General Statutes § 20-417a et seq. D’Angelo Development & Construction Co. v. Cordovano, 278 Conn. 237, 897 A.2d

81 (2006). In holding that the subject contract was

enforceable and not rendered unenforceable merely by

virtue of the contractor’s failure to abide by several of

the act’s statutory requirements, the court noted that

the underlying purpose of the construction contract at

issue was not to violate the law. Id., 242. Rather, the

court reasoned, the construction contract was meant

to effectuate an ‘‘otherwise legal contract.’’ Id. In similar

fashion to the plaintiff in the present appeal, the party

seeking enforcement of the contract in D’Angelo Development & Construction Co., the contractor, caused a

statutory violation in forming the construction contract

because it did not know of the act’s registration requirement. Id. Upon becoming aware of the registration

requirement, the contractor immediately sought such

registration in order to comply with the law. Id., 240

n.2, 242. In the present case, the record shows that the

plaintiff did not know that the privacy wall had not

been approved by the commission at the time that it
contracted with the defendant. Once the plaintiff

learned of the discrepancy, it promptly sought a special

use permit from the commission to allow it to construct

the privacy wall. Thus, we conclude that the purpose

undergirding the deck expansion contract and the plaintiff’s actions was not to violate Enfield’s zoning regulations, but rather to carry out deck expansion projects

in the most efficient manner possible.

In a case heavily relied upon by the plaintiff and the

defendant, 12 Havemeyer Place Co., LLC v. Gordon,

76 Conn. App. 377, 820 A.2d 299, cert. denied, 264 Conn.

919, 828 A.2d 618 (2003), this court addressed the issue

of whether a lease agreement was illegal ab initio and,

therefore, unenforceable due to its noncompliance with

a site plan’s designated requirements. Id., 383. The dispute arose from a lease of parking spaces in an underground parking garage, which was located between two

neighboring retail office properties, 60 Arch Street and

71 Arch Street, in Greenwich. Id., 380–81. The original

1980 site plan for the garage designated specific

amounts of the garage’s parking spaces for each property, but a purchaser that bought both properties in

1988 eventually sold 60 Arch Street to another party

and leased a different amount of parking spaces to the

property than was designated in the site plan. Following

a subsequent lease of the parking spaces between two

successors, the plaintiff lessor brought a summary process action against the defendant lessee and argued

that the lease was invalid because of the deviation from

the original site plan. Id., 381–82.17 The trial court concluded that the lease was enforceable.

Following an appeal, this court held that the lease

was enforceable and did not undercut public policy

considerations merely because it did not comply with

the original site plan. Id., 392. We noted that the relevant

inquiry with respect to the lease’s claimed illegality

not only concerned the lease’s purpose, but also the

violated regulation’s dimensions. Id., 389. Thus, in the

context of the case, we framed this aspect of the inquiry

as being ‘‘whether the site plan . . . is a zoning regulation involving the common good or a regulation that

has as its overriding purpose a private goal that does not

contravene the common good.’’Id. Given that backdrop,

we then considered the nature of zoning laws and violations of them, keeping in mind the issue of whether

such violations contravened the common good.Id., 389–

91. We stated that ‘‘[p]arties may bind themselves to a

contract that calls on its face for a use of property that

violates the zoning laws because, due to the possibility

of obtaining a variance, such a bargain is not against

public policy or public morals.’’ (Internal quotation

marks omitted.) Id., 390–91. Even though the zoning

board of appeals denied the plaintiff’s variance, we concluded that the possibility that the variance could be

obtained at all cured any of the lease agreement’s

alleged zoning defects. Id., 391–92.
In light of judicial precedent and the facts in the

record, we conclude that the deck expansion contract

in the present case was not illegal such that it was void

as against public policy. In a similar way to the lease

agreement at issue in 12 Havemeyer Place Co., LLC, the

deck expansion contract’s purpose was not to violate

Enfield’s zoning regulations, and it certainly was not

to contravene the common good. Rather, the evidence

shows that the contract’s zoning deviations arose from

a mere administrative oversight committed by the plaintiff. Further, the evidence shows that the plaintiff remedied the deck expansion contract’s zoning

noncompliance upon becoming aware of it. We also are

persuaded that the severity of the zoning discrepancy

at issue here is not of sufficient magnitude to render

the contract void on public policy grounds. See id., 392

(‘‘[o]n the particular facts of this case, the plaintiff is

not entitled to possession because we hold that the

violation of the zoning laws with regard to the parking

required by the site plan was not sufficient to render

the [contract] illegal as against public policy’’ [emphasis

added]); cf. Foley v. Huntington Co., 42 Conn. App.

712, 723, 682 A.2d 1026 (‘‘restrictions imposed by governmental authority, such as zoning regulations, are not

a defect affecting marketable title to property’’), cert.

denied, 239 Conn. 931, 683 A.2d 397 (1996); Voorheesville Rod & Gun Club v. E.W. Tompkins Co., 82 N.Y.2d

564, 572, 626 N.E.2d 917, 606 N.Y.S.2d 132 (1993) (real

property vendor’s failure to seek subdivision approval

before conveying land did notrendertitle to land unmarketable under municipal regulations).

We are mindful of the defendant’s reiteration of her

argument in the context of this claim, that the court also

erred by not addressing whether the deck expansion

contract was illegal for reasons other than it’s noncompliance with the zoning regulations. As we concluded

in part I of this opinion, the court did not err by failing

to address other claims regarding the illegality of the

deck expansion contract or the impossibility of its performance in its memorandum of decision because the

defendant did not distinctly raise those other claims

or furnish the court with sufficient evidence of them.

Accordingly, we conclude that the court did not err by

concluding that the deck expansion contract was legal

and enforceable.

The judgments are affirmed.

In this opinion the other judges concurred.

1 Robert E. Johnston is also named as a defendant in the present case.

He is a nonunit owner occupant of the condominium that is the subject of

this dispute, to which Carol A. Johnston holds title. Mortgage Electronic

Registration Systems, Inc., as nominee for USAA Federal Savings Bank, is

also named as a defendant, but it is not a party to this appeal. Accordingly,

for purposes of this opinion, we refer to Carol A. Johnston as the defendant.

2 The plaintiff is a common interest community unit owners’ association

whose common interest community is located in Enfield.

3 Specifically, at this August 31, 2011 meeting, the board unanimously

passed a motion ‘‘to begin a fine of $25 per day until the accumulated total
is equal to 3 months of common fees and if unpaid, turn to collection and

pursue getting a court order . . . for the homeowner to adhere to the

original agreement and specifications.’’

4 The plaintiff also indicated in the September 20, 2011 letter that it could

bring a legal action against the defendant to foreclose its statutory lien

securing any of her unpaid fines if she decided not to comply with the

plaintiff’s demands.

5 General Statutes § 47-258 provides in relevant part: ‘‘(a) The association

has a statutory lien on a unit for any assessment attributable to that unit

or fines imposed against its unit owner. Unless the declaration otherwise

provides, reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, other fees, charges, late

charges, fines and interest charged pursuant to subdivisions (10), (11) and

(12) of subsection (a) of section 47-244 and any other sums due to the

association underthe declaration,this chapter, or as a result of an administrative, arbitration, mediation or judicial decision, are enforceable in the same

manner as unpaid assessments under this section. . . . (g) A judgment or

decree in any action brought under this section shall include costs and

reasonable attorney’s fees for the prevailing party. . . . (j) The association’s

lien may be foreclosed in like manner as a mortgage on real property.’’

6 The plaintiff eventually withdrew the second count from its complaint.

7

In her answer, the defendant pleaded only two special defenses, illegality

due to the contract’s violating Enfield zoning laws, and coercion. The defendant did not make any mention of her impossibility claim.

8

In her pretrial memorandum, the defendant stated that there were three

issues in the matter: (1) whether the deck expansion contract was valid;

(2) whether the defendant violated the contract; and (3) whether the Enfield

zoning regulations supersede the plaintiff’s bylaws and the declaration. Further, the defendant made the following claims of law: ‘‘The Defendant

believes that the contract is illegal based upon the unequal bargaining positions of the parties. The Plaintiff had no authority to impose terms and

conditions on the Defendant inconsistent with the approved plans of the

Condominium Association by the Town of Enfield. The Plaintiff cannot

unilaterally change the terms and conditions approved by the Town of

Enfield. The Plaintiff committed a fraud upon the Defendant by the misrepresentations of the requirements of the deck replacement or expansion.’’

9

In her objection to the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, although

the defendant again had a chance to argue that there were material issues

of fact as to whether it was impossible for her to perform under the deck

expansion contract, she failed to do so distinctly.

10 During trial, the defendant’s counsel put on only one witness, Robert

E. Johnston, who only testified, more or less, about when the defendant

entered into the deck expansion contract with the plaintiff, what the dimensions of unit 92’s deck were before and after the expansion, and who carried

out the construction of the deck. As for the plaintiff’s witnesses, who were

the property manager and the secretary of the board, the defendant’s counsel

could have asked questions about the need for all unit owners to vote on

and to approve expansion of unit 92’s deck onto common elements, yet he

failed to do so. Instead, the defendant’s counsel focused his cross-examination questions on the zoning issues that arose with the deck expansion

contract and the requirements of the contract itself.

11 We further note that the defendant did not set forth this claim as a

special defense. ‘‘In an action by a corporation, foreign or domestic, founded

upon any contract, express or implied, the defendant shall not, under a

general denial, be permitted to dispute, but shall be deemed to admit, the

capacity of the plaintiff to make such contract.’’ Practice Book § 10-49.

12 The defendant notes that the special use permit was not legally effective

until a certified copy of it was recorded in the Enfield land records pursuant

to General Statutes § 8-3d. Thus, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff’s

fines against her were unlawful because they were based on the defendant’s

failure to construct a privacy wall that was not able to be built legally until

several months after the fines began to accrue.

13 The defendant also notes that the civil action that she filed seeking a

declaratory judgment regarding the deck expansion contract’s enforceability; see Johnston v. Carriage House I-Enfield Assn., Inc., Superior Court,

judicial district of Hartford, Docket No. CV-11-6026612-S; was still pending

during the time that she was being fined for not abiding by the contract’s

requirements, which, according to her, further justified her argument that

it was impossible for her to build a privacy wall pursuant to the contract.

14 We reject the fourth component of this claim because of our conclusion

in part I A of this opinion.
15 Moreover, even if we were to consider the claim on its merits, evidence

in the record readily demonstrates that the defendant’s claim lacks merit.

Specifically, the evidence shows that despite the fact that the defendant

learned that the commission had not approved a privacy wall for unit 92’s

deck, she chose to breach the contract by obtaining a building permit without

a privacy wall and commencing in building the deck without waiting for

the plaintiff to obtain a permit allowing the wall. Further, the evidence

shows that before the plaintiff began fining the defendant on October 6,

2011, the plaintiff gave the defendant the option of either returning unit 92’s

deck to its original state or constructing the privacy wall. The defendant

chose to do neither and now claims that she should not have been fined

until the permit allowing the privacy wall was recorded with the Enfield

town clerk’s office. We disagree.

16 Specifically, the court not only examined the policy rationale behind

the Workers’ Compensation Act; Dowling v. Slotnik, supra, 244 Conn. 799–

801, but it also discussed the rationale behind the Immigration Reform and

Control Act of 1986, 8 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq. (2012), which also pertained to

the parties’ case. Id., 795–97. The court primarily focused its analysis with

respect to the latter statutory scheme on 8 U.S.C. § 1324a (a), which makes

it unlawful knowingly to employ illegal aliens. After acknowledging that

the Immigration Reform and Control Act’s primary purpose is to punish

employers that knowingly hire illegal immigrants, the court ultimately concluded that deeming the disputed employment contract enforceable would

further the act’s purpose because it would punish the employer who hired

the illegal alien by requiring it to pay into the workers’ compensation fund.

Id., 810–13.

17 Specifically,the defendantfiled a separate action from the one on appeal,

in which he sought injunctive relief, damages, and a declaratory judgment

that the lease was valid and enforceable. 12 Havemeyer Place Co., LLC v.

Gordon, supra, 76 Conn. App. 382. The plaintiff filed a counterclaim pleading

that the defendant was liable for tortious interference with its leases with

its own tenants in the 60 Arch Street building. Id. The defendant subsequently

withdrew his application for a temporary restraining order against the plaintiff in exchange for its agreement to seek a variance with the town of

Greenwich. Id. The plaintiff did seek a variance, but the Greenwich Zoning

Board of Appeals denied it, concluding that the plaintiff had not demonstrated the requisite hardship. Id. A Greenwich zoning enforcement officer

then cited the plaintiff for a violation of a municipal zoning ordinance

because of its reduction of on-site parking spaces for 60 Arch Street from

forty-eight spaces to forty-two spaces, and he ordered it to restore the six

parking spots as being for use by 60 Arch Street. Id. At this point, the plaintiff

served the defendant with a notice to quit and brought a summary process

action against him for immediate possession of the sixteen parking spaces

that had been subject to the 1988 lease. Id., 382–83. This summary process

action became the subject of the appeal.