Customers Bank v. Boxer
2014 Conn. App. LEXIS 75
Conn. App. Ct.2014Background
- Customers Bank acquired title to 426 Westover Road, Stamford via strict foreclosure; defendant resided on property at acquisition.
- Plaintiff served a first notice to quit on April 2, 2012, requiring possession by July 3, 2012; defendant did not respond or tender rent.
- A second notice to quit was served May 7, 2012 directing possession by May 15, 2012; defendant did not quit.
- Plaintiff sought possession and alleged defendant’s occupancy was not a bona fide PTFA tenancy due to lack of a valid arm’s-length lease and rent not substantially equal to FMV.
- Trial court ordered $4000/month use and occupancy; defendant did not comply; judgment entered for possession on September 27, 2012; judgment opened, then bifurcated to address PTFA defenses.
- Evidence showed a six-month written lease (January 19, 2012–June 31, 2012) for $5000/month with oral modification allowing improvements in lieu of rent; defendant argued this created a PTFA bona fide tenancy; court found PTFA inapplicable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendant is a bona fide tenant under PTFA. | PTFA third prong requires rent not substantially less than FMV. | Oral modification equates to rent in kind for improvements. | No; PTFA not satisfied, inapplicable. |
| Whether improvements in lieu of rent can satisfy the PTFA rent requirement. | Improvements may count if value equates to FMV rent. | Improvements constitute rent under PTFA. | Improvements did not total equivalent FMV rent. |
| Whether a ninety-day PTFA notice was properly provided. | Defendant was given PTFA protections via notice. | Notice was insufficient. | Court did not disturb notice conclusion; PTFA not applicable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Doctor’s A ssociates, Inc. v. Windham, 146 Conn. App. 768 (2013) (statutory interpretation standards; plain meaning controls)
- Rutka v. Meriden, 145 Conn. App. 202 (2013) (fact-finding deferential standard; review for clear error)
- Baier v. Smith, 120 Conn. 568 (1935) (oral modification of written leases allowed)
- Taft Realty Corp. v. Yorkhaven Enterprises, 146 Conn. 338 (1959) (rent may be changed by oral agreement)
- Commissioner on Human Rights & Opportunities ex rel. Arnold v. Forvil, 302 Conn. 263 (2011) (definition of "payment" and value; rents include payments of value)