Firstlight Hydro Generating Co. v. First Black Ink, LLC
2013 Conn. App. LEXIS 327
Conn. App. Ct.2013Background
- Lease (written, term ended Dec. 31, 2005) between Connecticut Light & Power (assigned to FirstLight) and First Black Ink, LLC; tenant remained in possession after term expired.
- Plaintiff sued in October 2011 in summary process seeking possession for lapse of time; plaintiff did not serve a statutory notice to quit beforehand.
- Lease paragraph 17 contained waiver language: lessee “FURTHER WAIVES all right to any notice to quit possession as may be prescribed by the statutes relating to summary process.”
- Defendant moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because no notice to quit was served; trial court denied dismissal, finding an express waiver under § 47a-25.
- Trial resulted in judgment for plaintiff awarding immediate possession; defendant appealed arguing the waiver only related to lessee default and thus did not apply to lapse-of-time termination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether paragraph 17 constituted an express waiver of statutory notice to quit for lease termination by lapse of time | Waiver language must be read in context of entire lease and summary process statutes; it waives any notice to quit allowed by those statutes | Waiver appears in a paragraph titled and drafted about lessee default; thus it applies only to defaults, not lapse of time | Waiver is sufficiently broad and unambiguous to waive notice to quit as permitted by § 47a-25; applies to lapse-of-time terminations |
| Whether failure to serve a notice to quit deprived the court of subject matter jurisdiction | Because tenant expressly waived notice to quit, § 47a-25 allows summary process without prior notice; court had jurisdiction | Without statutory notice, court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and action must be dismissed | Court had jurisdiction because the lease constituted an express waiver; judgment for plaintiff affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Bristol v. Ocean State Job Lot Stores of Connecticut, Inc., 284 Conn. 1 (Connecticut 2007) (summary process statutes narrowly construed; subject matter jurisdiction depends on valid notice to quit)
- Connors v. Clark, 79 Conn. 100 (Connecticut 1906) (waiver language in a different paragraph construed broadly to waive all rights of notice)
- United Illuminating Co. v. Wisvest-Connecticut, LLC, 259 Conn. 665 (Connecticut 2002) (contracts should not be interpreted to render provisions superfluous)
- Jo-Ann Stores, Inc. v. Property Operating Co., LLC, 91 Conn. App. 179 (Conn. App. 2005) (review of unambiguous lease provisions is plenary)
- Imation Corp. v. Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V., 586 F.3d 980 (Federal Cir. 2009) (section headings cannot override clear operative contract language)