156 Conn.App. 158
Conn. App. Ct.2015Background
- Bellini (lessor) and Patterson Oil (lessee) executed a commercial lease beginning November 1, 1989 with an initial five‑year term and an automatic five‑year renewal provision (§ 18) absent 90 days' written notice.
- Parties exchanged a written “one year extension” on August 31, 1994 (Nov. 1, 1994–Oct. 1, 1995) and a six‑month extension on October 10, 1995 (Nov. 1, 1995–Apr. 30, 1996); neither letter referenced § 18.
- From April 30, 1996 through April 30, 2011 Patterson remained in possession and paid monthly rent, which Bellini accepted each month.
- Patterson gave written notice April 22, 2011 that it would vacate April 30, 2011; Bellini sued for breach claiming the lease had automatically renewed and ran until Oct. 31, 2014, seeking unpaid rent.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for Patterson, concluding the parties’ 1994–1995 agreements abrogated § 18 and subsequent conduct created a month‑to‑month tenancy; Bellini appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 18 (automatic five‑year renewals) remained in effect | § 18 stayed in force; lease automatically renewed through 2014 | 1994 and 1995 extension letters replaced § 18, so no automatic five‑year renewals | Letters abrogated § 18; new short‑term agreements controlled |
| Whether parties’ subsequent conduct created a month‑to‑month tenancy | Continued occupancy and rent payments did not convert tenancy; original renewal should govern | Acceptance of monthly rent after April 30, 1996 established a month‑to‑month tenancy | Conduct (monthly payments/acceptance) evidenced month‑to‑month tenancy |
| Whether Patterson needed 90 days' written notice to terminate | Required by § 18 and lease terms | Not required if month‑to‑month tenant | As month‑to‑month tenant, no 90‑day obligation; Patterson could leave after notice |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate | Genuine issue of material fact existed about tenancy status | No genuine issue; facts established month‑to‑month status as a matter of law | Summary judgment for defendant affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Weiss v. Weiss, 297 Conn. 446 (Connecticut 2010) (summary judgment standard)
- Bonington v. Westport, 297 Conn. 297 (Connecticut 2010) (appellate review of summary judgment)
- Riverside Coal Co. v. American Coal Co., 107 Conn. 40 (Connecticut 1927) (contract modification by subsequent agreement)
- W. G. Maltby, Inc. v. Associated Realty Co., 114 Conn. 283 (Connecticut 1932) (conduct and rent acceptance can create month‑to‑month tenancy)
- Rokalor, Inc. v. Connecticut Eating Enterprises, Inc., 18 Conn. App. 384 (Connecticut App. 1989) (tenant released from obligations when tenancy ends)