167 Conn. App. 544
Conn. App. Ct.2016Background
- Tenant Val Thomas complained to the local health district (July 11, 2014) about a bed‑bug infestation; an inspector confirmed infestation and an order of violation issued July 18, 2014.
- Landlord Leroy Holdmeyer testified he received the violation order on July 30, 2014.
- Landlord served a notice to quit dated August 15, 2014 and commenced summary process (eviction) on August 29, 2014, seeking possession of a week‑to‑week tenancy.
- The trial court found the tenant established a presumption of retaliatory eviction under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 47a‑20 but concluded the landlord had rebutted that presumption and entered judgment for the landlord.
- On rehearing the trial court again found the landlord rebutted the presumption and entered immediate possession; tenant appealed.
- The Appellate Court held the landlord failed to prove any of the four exclusive statutory exceptions in Conn. Gen. Stat. § 47a‑20a and reversed, directing judgment for the tenant.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether landlord rebutted presumption of retaliatory eviction under § 47a‑20 | Holdmeyer argued eviction was not retaliatory — motivated by tenant’s poor cooperation and other reasons; court may consider good‑faith reasons | Thomas argued once presumption arose under § 47a‑20, only the four enumerated § 47a‑20a exceptions can rebut it; none apply here | Reversed: landlord did not prove any § 47a‑20a exception; presumption not rebutted; judgment for tenant directed |
| Whether extra‑statutory proof (good faith reasons) may rebut § 47a‑20 presumption | Landlord/trial court relied on good‑faith motive as rebuttal (citing older authority) | Tenant contended Correa controls: rebuttal limited to § 47a‑20a enumerated grounds | Held: Correa controls; non‑enumerated reasons are inadequate to rebut the statutory presumption |
| Adequacy of trial court findings on § 47a‑20a grounds | Court asserted rebuttal without finding one of the four statutory grounds | Tenant argued absence of findings and absence of evidence for any § 47a‑20a ground | Held: No evidence supports any § 47a‑20a ground; trial court’s conclusion inadequate |
| Whether other procedural claims (due process, continuance, counsel, testimony limits) require reversal | Landlord/record did not establish reversible error on these points | Tenant raised multiple procedural/due process claims | Held: Appellate Court reviewed and found those claims without merit; disposition rests on failure to rebut statutory presumption |
Key Cases Cited
- Correa v. Ward, 91 Conn. App. 142 (Conn. App. 2005) (once tenant proves § 47a‑20 retaliation presumption, rebuttal is limited to the four § 47a‑20a grounds)
- Visco v. Cody, 16 Conn. App. 444 (Conn. App. 1988) (describes § 47a‑20 as creating a presumption of retaliation when eviction follows a protected complaint)
- Alteri v. Layton, 408 A.2d 18 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1979) (trial court precedent suggesting good‑faith motive may rebut § 47a‑20, cited by trial court but held subordinate to Correa)
- Wilson v. Jefferson, 98 Conn. App. 147 (Conn. App. 2006) (discusses statutory construction principles and review standard)