175 Conn. App. 154
Conn. App. Ct.2017Background
- Colonial Investors, LLC owns a mobile home park and leases lots to homeowners; Furbush renewed a lot rental agreement with base rent plus utility-related additional rent.
- By April 1, 2014, Furbush had an arrearage of $1,615.13; she paid $600 on April 11, leaving $1,015.13, and was served a notice to quit on April 30, 2014 claiming $1,015.13 due and giving a 30‑day cure period.
- Furbush did not pay within 30 days; Colonial filed a summary process (eviction) action, and the trial court entered judgment for possession for Colonial.
- Furbush raised special defenses: (1) notice to quit was legally insufficient (failed to clearly state right to avoid eviction by paying total arrearage); (2) customer service / utility charges were improperly treated as rent and inflated the arrearage; (3) illegal water submetering made the water charges improper; and (4) her April 2014 $600 payment was applied to current rent rather than past arrearage.
- Trial court denied dismissal, found the notice legally sufficient, concluded utility customer service charges were authorized by the lease and properly billed as additional rent, held MDC submetering was not regulated by PURA and thus not unlawful, and found the $600 payment properly applied to past arrearage based on course of performance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Colonial) | Defendant's Argument (Furbush) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legal sufficiency of notice to quit (did it clearly notify 30‑day right to avoid eviction by paying total arrearage under §21‑80) | Notice identified total arrearage and disclaimer was substantially similar to statutory use-and-occupancy language, so it conferred jurisdiction | Disclaimer wording was long, confusing, and discouraged tendering payment; thus notice failed to give clear 30‑day cure right | Notice was legally sufficient: it stated total arrearage and the disclaimer adequately informed of the 30‑day cure right |
| Inclusion of customer service utility charges in arrearage (were surcharges lawful components of rent) | Lease and renewal authorized additional rent and service charges if itemized; customer service charges were itemized and tied to maintenance of utilities | Charges exceeded usage and were not authorized by the lease; thus they improperly inflated arrearage | Charges were authorized by renewal and rental agreement and clearly itemized; inclusion in arrearage was proper |
| Legality of water submetering (did §16‑11‑55 require PURA approval for MDC submetering) | Submetering regulation does not apply to MDC because MDC is a metropolitan district exempt from "water company" definition | Submetering required PURA approval and MDC lacked it, so water charges were illegal and notice inflated arrearage | MDC is a metropolitan district exempt from the statute’s definition of water company, so the regulation did not bar its submetering; defense rejected |
| Application of April 11, 2014 $600 payment (applied to past arrearage vs. current month) | Payment was applied to past arrearage consistent with parties’ course of performance and monthly statements | No evidence of a standard practice that payments would be so applied; plaintiff unilaterally applied payment to arrearage | Payments were applied first to arrearage by custom and reflected in statements and ledgers; court properly applied the $600 to past arrearage |
Key Cases Cited
- Bayer v. Showmotion, Inc., 292 Conn. 381 (review of legal sufficiency of notice to quit is plenary)
- Ossen v. Kreutzer, 19 Conn. App. 564 (§21‑80 requires 30‑day written notice stating total arrearage for mobile home parks)
- Lampasona v. Jacobs, 209 Conn. 724 (jurisdictional inquiry into notice may require factual examination)
- South Sea Co. v. Global Turbine Component Technologies, LLC, 95 Conn. App. 742 (debtor’s direction as to application of payments can be inferred from circumstances)
- Duperry v. Solnit, 261 Conn. 309 (mixed questions of law and fact reviewed plenarily)