AC45151 - Stamford Property Holdings, LLC v. Jashari ("The present appeal arises out of an action brought by the plaintiff lessor, Stamford Property Holdings, LLC, against the defendant lessees, Dorian Jashari (Jashari) and Ismet Jashari, seeking, inter alia, reformation of a commercial lease between the parties based on unilateral or mutual mistake. The defendants appeal from the trial court's judgment in favor of the plaintiff. On appeal, they claim that the court (1) improperly granted reformation of the contract based on the ground of unilateral mistake because, contrary to the court's conclusion, there was no clear, substantial, and convincing proof of inequitable conduct on the part of the defendants, and (2) erred by granting the plaintiff equitable relief because the plaintiff's misconduct before the parties executed the lease barred its claim for reformation. We conclude that the defendants' first claim is moot, and we are not persuaded by their second claim. Accordingly, we dismiss as moot the portion of the appeal related to the first claim and affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC45880 - Centrix Management Co., LLC v. Fosberg ("In this summary process action, the plaintiff landlord, Centrix Management Company, LLC, appeals from the trial court's postjudgment award of attorney's fees to the defendant tenant, Donald Fosberg, pursuant to General Statutes § 42-150bb. The defendant moves to dismiss this appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the ground that the plaintiff failed to timely appeal pursuant to General Statutes § 47a-35. The plaintiff opposes the motion, arguing that the applicable appeal period is not five days under § 47a-35 but, rather, twenty days under Practice Book § 63-1, as it is not challenging the judgment of possession. We conclude that the twenty day appeal period set forth in Practice Book § 63-1 applies to a postjudgment award of attorney's fees in the summary process context. We therefore deny the motion to dismiss.")

• Posted in:
• Contract Law,
• Landlord / Tenant Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC45330 - Prime Management, LLC v. Arthur ("The defendant Jessica Arthur appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying her (1) motion to open a default judgment and (2) motion to dismiss the summary process action filed by the plaintiff, Prime Management, LLC. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court incorrectly interpreted Executive Order No. 12D, issued by Governor Ned Lamont on June 30, 2021, in concluding that it had subject matter jurisdiction over the summary process action. We agree and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Landlord / Tenant Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC45077 - J. M. v. E. M. ("In this summary process action based on nonpayment of rent, the plaintiff landlord, J. M., appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing the action in favor of the defendant tenant, E. M. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that (1) the court incorrectly found that he had reinstated the tenancy by accepting the defendant's tendered payments labeled as 'rent' after service of the notice and after the quit date specified in the notice to quit despite the fact that the notice to quit included a use and occupancy disclaimer and (2) the court's determination also was improper because the governor's executive orders affecting eviction proceedings during the COVID-19 pandemic required that any use and occupancy disclaimer in the notice to quit not be effective until thirty days after the notice was served and required the plaintiff to accept rent payments during that thirty day period. The plaintiff further requests that this court adjudicate the merits of the defendant's affirmative defenses to the summary process action, notwithstanding that the court did not reach the merits of those defenses. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Landlord / Tenant Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC45191 - Lawrence v. Gude ("The plaintiff, Dawson Lawrence, appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered following a court trial in an action for damages arising from a residential lease against the married defendants, Roberto Gude (Roberto) and Adriana Gude (Adriana). On appeal, the plaintiff argues that the court improperly found that Adriana was not liable for back rent and use and occupancy under the lease pursuant to General Statutes § 46b-37 (b) (3). We agree and, accordingly, reverse in part the judgment of the court.")

• Posted in:
• Landlord / Tenant Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC42832 - Mention v. Kensington Square Apartments (Housing code enforcement; "In this housing code enforcement action, the defendant, Kensington Square Apartments, appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the plaintiff, Regina Mention. On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to consider evidence in support of the plaintiff's claim that predated the filing of her complaint with the New Haven Livable City Initiative (Initiative), (2) the court improperly concluded as a matter of law that the defendant violated title V of the New Haven Code of Ordinances (housing code), and (3) the housing code is unconstitutionally vague. The plaintiff also challenges the judgment of the trial court, by way of a cross appeal, claiming that the court erred in calculating rent abatement based on her share of the subsidized rent, rather than the full market rent. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Landlord / Tenant Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC44860 - Maye v. Canady ("The self-represented defendant, Devonne Canady, appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the self-represented plaintiff, Solomon Maye, on his claim of entry and detainer. On appeal, we discern the defendant's claims to be that the trial court erred in finding that (1) there was a landlord-tenant relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant and (2) the plaintiff's damages resulting from the defendant's entry and detainer amount to $10,286.63. We conclude that the record is inadequate for our review as to the defendant's first claim, and, therefore, we decline to review it. As to the defendant's second claim, we conclude that the court improperly awarded a portion of the plaintiff's damages concerning moving expenses. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the trial court only as to the award of damages.")

• Posted in:
• Landlord / Tenant Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC43887 - Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities ex rel. Cortes v. Valentin (Housing discrimination; "The defendant, Margaret Valentin, appeals from the judgment of the trial court, rendered after a trial to the court, in favor of the plaintiff, the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities (commission), and the intervening plaintiff, Julissa Cortes, in this action alleging housing discrimination in violation of General Statutes 46a-64c (a). The defendant claims that (1) there was insufficient evidence to support the court's conclusion that she had violated 46a-64c (a) by engaging in discriminatory housing practices, (2) the court abused its discretion in awarding Cortes compensatory damages for emotional distress and (3) the court (a) improperly failed to conduct an evidentiary hearing prior to denying her application for a writ of audita querela and (b) abused its discretion in denying her motion for reargument and reconsideration of that application. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Civil Rights,
• Landlord / Tenant Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC44178 - Parrott v. Colon (Housing code enforcement; "In this housing code enforcement action, the plaintiffs, John J. Parrott and Solanyi A. Parrott-Rosario, appeal from the judgment of the trial court, rendered after a bench trial, in favor of the defendants, Al L. Colon, Karen J. Colon (landlord), and Robert C. White & Company, LLC (property manager). The plaintiffs claim that the court incorrectly construed General Statutes § 47a-7 when it required them to prove by a fair preponderance of the evidence that their allegations constituted violations of the housing code or materially affected the health, safety and habitability of the premises. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Landlord / Tenant Law,
• Recent Opinions

SC20625 - AGW Sono Partners, LLC v. Downtown Soho, LLC (Commercial lease; "In the earliest months of the COVID-19 public health emergency, Governor Ned Lamont issued numerous executive orders that closed or severely restricted the operation of various businesses, including bars and restaurants, in order to stem the spread of the virus at that time. This appeal requires us to consider how those executive orders affected the enforceability of a commercial lease agreement for premises in South Norwalk that the defendants, Downtown Soho, LLC (Downtown Soho), and Edin Ahmetaj, leased from the plaintiff, AGW Sono Partners, LLC, for their fine dining restaurant. The defendants appeal, and the plaintiff cross appeals, from the judgment of the trial court awarding the plaintiff $200,308.76 in damages for the defendants' breach of that lease agreement. In their appeal, the defendants claim, inter alia, that the trial court incorrectly concluded that the common-law doctrines of impossibility and frustration of purpose did not relieve them of their obligations under the lease agreement, given the damaging economic effects of the various executive orders on their restaurant's business. In its cross appeal, the plaintiff claims that, in calculating the damages award, the trial court improperly allocated the burden of proof in determining whether the plaintiff had mitigated its damages when it leased the premises to a new tenant at a lesser rent than the defendants had paid. We conclude that the trial court correctly determined that the economic effects of the executive orders did not relieve the defendants of their obligations under the lease agreement but that a new damages hearing is required because the trial court improperly allocated the burden of proof as to mitigation in determining the damages award. Accordingly, we reverse in part the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Contract Law,
• Landlord / Tenant Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC44657 - Robbins Eye Center, P.C. v. Commerce Park Associates, LLC ("The defendants, Commerce Park Associates, LLC (Commerce Park), and RDR Management, LLC (RDR), appeal from the judgment of the trial court granting a postjudgment motion of the plaintiff, Robbins Eye Center, P.C., seeking an order compelling Commerce Park to deliver to the plaintiff's counsel certain escrowed funds and future payments received by Commerce Park vis-a-vis an account receivable. The dispositive issue raised by the defendants on appeal is whether a provision in a commercial lease executed by Commerce Park and Kim Robbins, who owns the plaintiff and is a nonparty to this matter, precludes the plaintiff from collecting the escrowed funds and payments at issue. We conclude that the lease provision does not bar the plaintiff's collection efforts, and, therefore, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Landlord / Tenant Law,
• Recent Opinions,
• Tort Law

SC20574 - Lopez v. William Raveis Real Estate, Inc. ("In this appeal, we consider the standard for determining whether a statement made in connection with the sale or rental of a dwelling violates General Statutes § 46a-64c (a) (3) by indicating a 'preference, limitation, or discrimination,' or an 'intention to make any such preference, limitation or discrimination,' on the basis of an individual's 'lawful source of income . . . .' The plaintiff, Carmen Lopez, appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the defendants, William Raveis Real Estate, Inc. (Raveis), Sarah Henry, a licensed real estate salesperson, and Anthony Vaccaro and Eve Vaccaro, in this action alleging housing discrimination in violation of § 46a-64c (a). On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the trial court, in considering whether Henry violated § 46a-64c (a) (3) by making certain statements in the course of renting an apartment owned by the Vaccaros, improperly considered whether Henry had the subjective intent to discriminate on the basis of lawful source of income when she made those statements. The plaintiff specifically contends that she is entitled to judgment in her favor because (1) Henry's statements were facially discriminatory, rendering her subjective intent irrelevant as a matter of law, and (2) even if we were to conclude that Henry's statements were not facially discriminatory, the trial court nevertheless incorrectly determined that the statements, considered in context, did not convey an impermissible preference. We conclude that, although the trial court applied the proper legal standard in considering the plaintiff's claims under § 46a-64c (a) (3), its ultimate conclusion as to liability on the facts of this case was clearly erroneous with respect to Henry. Accordingly, we reverse in part the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Civil Rights,
• Landlord / Tenant Law

AC44177 - Bernblum v. The Grove Collaborative, LLC ("In this action arising out of negotiations over a potential commercial lease, the defendants, The Grove Collaborative, LLC (The Grove), and its sole member, Slate Ballard, appeal from the judgment of the trial court, rendered following a bench trial, in favor of the plaintiff, Steven Bernblum, and from the court's denial of the defendants' motion to reconsider/reargue. The defendants claim on appeal that the court improperly (1) concluded that the plaintiff had standing to bring those counts of the complaint sounding in breach of contract, 'breach of lease,' and 'detrimental reliance' (contract counts), because he, individually, was not a party to any purported lease or the lease negotiations that underlie the allegations with respect to those counts and (2) concluded that the plaintiff had established those counts sounding in negligent misrepresentation. We conclude that the plaintiff lacked standing to bring the contract counts and that he failed to meet his burden of proof with respect to the negligent misrepresentation counts. Accordingly, we reverse in part and affirm in part the judgment of the court.")

AC44720 - Housing Authority v. Neal ("In this summary process action brought by the plaintiff, the Housing Authority of the City of New Britain, against the defendant, Calvin W. Neal, the plaintiff appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered following a hearing, denying its affidavit of noncompliance with stipulation, sustaining the objection of the defendant and requiring the parties to continue to perform their respective obligations pursuant to a stipulated agreement of the parties. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the trial court erred (1) in finding that the defendant was not a tenant at sufferance, (2) in concluding that the requirements of General Statutes § 47a-11 did not apply to the defendant, and (3) in concluding that the filing of an affidavit of noncompliance was not the proper vehicle for addressing the alleged serious nuisance committed by the defendant after judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff, but before the plaintiff obtained possession of the premises occupied by the defendant. We agree with the plaintiff and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Contract Law,
• Landlord / Tenant Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC44894 - Housing Authority v. Parks ("In this summary process action, the plaintiff, Ansonia Housing Authority, appeals from the judgment of dismissal and the denial of its motion to reargue the dismissal. The defendant, Daryl Parks, moves to dismiss this appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the ground that the plaintiff failed to timely appeal from the judgment of dismissal pursuant to General Statutes § 47a-35. The plaintiff opposes the motion on the grounds that (1) the five day appeal period set forth in § 47a-35 applies only to an appeal brought by a tenant and is not applicable to an appeal brought by a landlord, and (2) its motion to reargue created a new appeal period for the judgment of dismissal. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that § 47a-35 is applicable to landlords and tenants alike and that the plaintiff's motion to reargue does not save the appeal from dismissal because it was not timely filed.")

• Posted in:
• Landlord / Tenant Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC44379 - Tolland Meetinghouse Commons, LLC v. CXF Tolland, LLC ("The present appeal arises out of an action alleging breach of a commercial lease agreement against the defendant CXF Tolland, LLC (Cardio Express), and breach of a guaranty agreement against the defendant Peter A. Rusconi. Rusconi appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the plaintiff, Tolland Meetinghouse Commons, LLC (Tolland Meetinghouse), granting Tolland Meetinghouse's motion for summary judgment. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• AC44379 Appendix - Tolland Meetinghouse Commons, LLC v. CXF Tolland, LLC

• Posted in:
• Contract Law,
• Landlord / Tenant Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC44500 - Rogalis, LLC v. Vazquez ("The plaintiff, Rogalis, LLC, appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing its summary process action against the named defendant, Michelle Lee Vazquez. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the trial court erred by (1) holding that the plaintiff did not acquire from its predecessor in title, pursuant to a quitclaim deed, the right to evict the defendant, (2) dismissing the summary process action on the ground that the plaintiff's sole member did not have the bona fide intention to use the dwelling as his principal residence, and (3) dismissing the summary process action on the basis of the court's posttrial consideration of extra-record evidence, namely, a prior summary process action brought by the plaintiff's predecessor in title against the defendant and her estranged husband. We conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in taking judicial notice of the prior summary process action without providing the parties an opportunity to address it either at trial or in a posttrial brief. We, therefore, reverse the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Landlord / Tenant Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC43695 - Freidburg v. Kurtz ("In this landlord-tenant dispute, the defendants, Jo-Ellen Kurtz, Andrew Kurtz, and Janice Levy, appeal from the judgment of the trial court, rendered after a bench trial, in favor of the plaintiff, Terrance Mills Freidburg. On appeal, the defendants claim that the court erred (1) in rendering judgment against them for damages to the property that they leased from the plaintiff without determining its age and condition at the commencement of the tenancy and the relative wear and tear of the items at the termination of the tenancy and (2) in failing to render judgment for the defendants on their counterclaim concerning their security deposit that they paid to the plaintiff when they entered into an agreement to lease the property. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Landlord / Tenant Law,
• Recent Opinions

The Connecticut Office of Legislative Research has recently published the following reports:

Mobile Manufactured Home Park Residents: Rights and Protections Against Rent Increases - 2021-R-0221 - Discusses the statutory (1) rights of mobile manufactured home park residents who own their mobile manufactured homes and rent a mobile manufactured home park lot and (2) protections against excessive rent increases for these residents. This report updates OLR reports 1994-R-0544 and 2006-R-0438.

States With Rent Control - 2021-R-0211 - Which states have statewide rent control or laws authorizing local governments to adopt rent control ordinances? What are the components and parameters of these ordinances? This report updates OLR Report 2018-R-0081.

Absentee Voting: Summary of Fay v. Merrill (2021) - 2021-R-0191 - Summarizes the Connecticut Supreme Court's opinion in Fay v. Merrill (338 Conn. 1 (2021)), particularly its discussion of whether "sickness," as used in the state constitution's absentee voting section (Conn. Const. art. VI, § 7), applies only to an individual voter's personal sickness or more broadly to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Post-Election Audits in Connecticut - 2021-R-0174 - Summarizes Connecticut’s post-election audit law.

Student Loan Forgiveness and Repayment Programs - 2021-R-0044 - Describes (1) student loan forgiveness and repayment programs in current state law, along with their current funding status and (2) examples of programs offered by other states and the federal government. This report updates OLR Report 2019-R-0053.

• Posted in:
• FYI,
• Landlord / Tenant Law,
• Legal Research,
• Self-Help

AC43471 - Housing Authority v. Stevens (Summary process; subject matter jurisdiction, serious nuisance, implicit bias; "In this summary process action, the defendant, Bruce Stevens, appeals from the trial court's judgment of possession rendered in favor of the plaintiff, the Housing Authority of the City of New London. The defendant claims that the court (1) lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the plaintiff failed to deliver to the defendant a pretermination, or Kapa, notice prior to commencing its summary process action against him, (2) improperly found that his conduct constituted a serious nuisance within the meaning of General Statutes § 47a-15 (C), and (3) made certain factual findings that are not supported by the evidentiary record. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Landlord / Tenant Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC43489 - Waters Edge 938, LLC v. Mazzarella (Summary process; claim that trial court improperly concluded that statutory (§ 47a-23c) prohibition against landlords dispossessing disabled tenants who reside in complex consisting of five or more units without good cause did not apply to action; "In this summary process action, the defendant Christine Mazzarella appeals from the judgment rendered, following a trial to the court, in favor of the plaintiff, Waters Edge 983, LLC. She claims that the court improperly concluded that General Statutes § 47a-23c, which prohibits landlords from dispossessing disabled tenants residing in a complex consisting of five or more units without good cause, did not apply to this action. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Landlord / Tenant Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC43560 - Herron v. Daniels ("In this landlord-tenant dispute over a security deposit, the defendant landlord, Linda Daniels, appeals from the judgment of the trial court, rendered following a trial to the court, in favor of the plaintiff tenant, Marc Herron. On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court erred when it (1) awarded the plaintiff double damages pursuant to General Statutes § 47a-21 (d), due to her failure to return to the plaintiff a portion of his security deposit, (2) concluded that the her handling of the plaintiff's security deposit and her failure to return a portion of his security deposit violated the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), General Statutes § 42-110a et seq., and (3) awarded punitive damages to the plaintiff under CUTPA.

The plaintiff cross appeals claiming that the court erred in (1) holding that he was not entitled to a return of certain rental payments because, pursuant to General Statutes § 47a-11a, he did not abandon the premises prior to June 30, 2017, and (2) denying his common-law claim for money had and received. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Landlord / Tenant Law,
• Recent Opinions