162 Conn.App. 333
Conn. App. Ct.2016Background
- Plaintiff (136 Field Point Circle Holding Co., LLC) sued defendants (Alexander and Tanya Razinski) in Connecticut summary process to recover possession of a Greenwich residence after lease payments and use-and-occupancy orders.
- Parties had a Master Agreement (governing relationship, contained New York choice-of-law and forum clauses) and a lease incorporated into that agreement; lease expired June 30, 2013, later extended to November 17, 2013.
- Defendants brought a related action in New York seeking injunctive and declaratory relief; the New York court later granted plaintiff summary judgment and a judgment of possession (appealed by defendants).
- In Connecticut proceedings, the trial court ordered monthly use-and-occupancy payments of $25,000 starting March 13, 2014; defendants paid through May but missed June (and later months).
- Plaintiff moved for judgment of possession; after a second missed payment the trial court entered judgment of possession on September 4, 2014 without holding the hearing prescribed by Conn. Gen. Stat. § 47a-26b(d).
- Defendants appealed arguing the court lacked authority to enter possession judgment without the § 47a-26b(d) hearing; the Appellate Court agreed and reversed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the appeal is moot because the lease expired or the New York judgment granted possession | Case is moot: lease expired and New York judgment already entitles plaintiff to possession | Not moot: defendants remain in possession, posted bond, and relief (retain possession/recover bond) is still practical | Not moot: defendants still possess and bond remains; New York judgment not preclusive here because Connecticut judgment preceded it |
| Whether § 47a-26b(d) required a hearing before entering judgment of possession when defendants had already filed an answer before missing payments | §47a-26b(d) doesn’t apply at this procedural posture; judge could enter possession as remedy for nonpayment | Statute requires a hearing if defendant has an answer; court erred by entering judgment without hearing | Held for defendants: where answer already filed, §47a-26b(d) entitles defendant to a hearing before judgment of possession |
| Whether § 47a-26b(d) is the exclusive remedy for failure to make use-and-occupancy payments | Other remedy (judgment) available; court may enforce orders by judgment or other sanctions | §47a-26b(d) prescribes the remedy sequence and effectively is the exclusive statutory remedy for noncompliance | Court treated §47a-26b(d) as specifying the required procedure; other remedies should not bypass the hearing requirement |
| Whether interpreting § 47a-26b(d) to require a hearing frustrates summary process goals | Allowing hearing would undermine summary/expedited process and reward dilatory defendants | Requiring hearing respects the statute and avoids punishing defendants who timely filed answers | Court: statutory reading that forces hearing when answer previously filed is consistent with summary process aims and avoids absurd results |
Key Cases Cited
- Putman v. Kennedy, 279 Conn. 162 (Connecticut Supreme Court) (mootness/justiciability principles)
- Peterson v. Robles, 134 Conn. App. 316 (Connecticut Appellate Court) (mootness doctrine in appeals)
- Sosnowski v. Monti, 36 Conn. App. 941 (Conn. App. 1995) (appeals from summary process can be moot after lease expiration)
- Evergreen Manor Associates v. Farrell, 9 Conn. App. 77 (Conn. App. 1986) (mootness where tenant no longer possessed premises)
- Western Boot & Clothing Co. v. L’Enfance Magique, Inc., 81 Conn. App. 486 (Conn. App. 2004) (lease expired but appeal not moot where defendant remains in possession)
- Prevedini v. Mobil Oil Corp., 164 Conn. 287 (Connecticut Supreme Court) (purpose of summary process proceedings)
- Weiss v. Weiss, 297 Conn. 446 (Connecticut Supreme Court) (res judicata standard and plenary review)
- Fink v. Golenbock, 238 Conn. 183 (Connecticut Supreme Court) (policy underlying res judicata)
- Bengtson v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, 86 Conn. App. 51 (Conn. App. 2004) (canons of statutory construction avoiding absurd results)
- Messinger v. Laudano, 4 Conn. App. 162 (Conn. App. 1985) (past treatment of nonpayment under §47a-26b)