CENTRIX MANAGEMENT CO., LLC v. Valencia
132 Conn. App. 582
Conn. App. Ct.2011Background
- Landlord Centrix and tenants Valencia and Sanchez entered a one-year residential lease on Oct 1, 2009 in Newington.
- Rent remained unpaid from Jan 2010 and continuing through May 2010; April/May rents also unpaid.
- Notice to quit was served May 14, 2010, requiring occupancy vacatur by May 21, 2010; tenants did not vacate.
- On June 26, 2010, landlord filed a five-count summary process complaint for nonpayment and lack of rights to possession.
- Valencia moved to dismiss on July 29, 2010, arguing lack of unequivocal notice to quit under § 47a-23; the court held a hearing and heard Deans’ testimony.
- The court dismissed the action, concluding that Deans’ subsequent conduct rendered the notice to quit equivocal; Centrix appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Deans’ post-notice conduct rendered the notice to quit equivocal | Centrix argues acts did not negate unequivocal notice | Valencia/Valencia counters acts created ambiguity about termination | Yes; notice became equivocal; judgment of dismissal affirmed |
| Whether the court abused its discretion in sustaining objections to questions on Deans’ intentions | Centrix sought inquiry into motivation behind the June 30 writing | Defendants contend questions pertain to intent beyond the issue | No; court did not abuse discretion; focus was on acts/writings rendering notice equivocal |
Key Cases Cited
- Housing Authority v. Hird, 13 Conn.App. 150 (1988) (notice to quit must be narrowly construed and strictly followed; it is a jurisdictional prerequisite)