Hous. Auth. of the Town of Greenwich v. Rodriguez
174 A.3d 844
Conn. App. Ct.2017Background
- Greenwich Housing Authority (plaintiff) leased a Wilbur Peck Court apartment to Romana Sanchez Rodriguez (defendant), who lived there with adult children Elizabeth and Charlee Rodriguez.
- Charlee was arrested on November 26, 2014 for drug-related offenses on housing authority property; on December 11, 2014 the authority served a § 47a-15 pretermination (Kapa) notice specifying the breach and offering an informal meeting.
- Defendant requested an informal meeting on December 18, 2014 with deputy director Terry Mardula; he memorialized that eviction would not be pursued then but warned any future arrest of Charlee would prompt immediate eviction proceedings.
- Charlee was arrested again at the defendant’s apartment on March 30, 2015 for substantially similar drug-related offenses; the authority served a notice to quit in April 2015 and commenced summary process.
- Defendant moved to dismiss, arguing a second pretermination notice under § 47a-15 was required and that the grievance meeting decision barred eviction; the trial court denied the motion and entered judgment for the housing authority.
- On appeal the court held the December 11, 2014 pretermination notice satisfied § 47a-15 and no new notice was required where the same breach recurred within six months; the December 18 meeting was informal and produced no binding hearing-officer decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a new § 47a-15 pretermination notice was required after a subsequent, similar arrest within six months | The December 11, 2014 Kapa notice covered the conduct and, since the same act recurred within six months, no new notice was required under § 47a-15 | The earlier notice was insufficient for the later eviction because the authority’s post-meeting decision not to evict nullified that notice and required a new notice | Held for plaintiff: statutory text allows reliance on the earlier pretermination notice when substantially the same breach recurs within six months; no second notice required |
| Whether the December 18, 2014 meeting produced a binding grievance hearing decision that barred later eviction | The meeting was informal settlement under HUD regs and memorialized the condition that future arrests would trigger eviction | The meeting functioned as an adjudicative grievance hearing and its decision was binding on the housing authority, precluding eviction | Held for plaintiff: the meeting was informal (no impartial hearing officer) and did not produce a binding hearing-officer decision |
| Whether failure to serve a new pretermination notice deprived the court of subject-matter jurisdiction | The plaintiff argued jurisdictional prerequisites were satisfied by the December 11 notice and the statutory exception for recurrence within six months | Defendant argued lack of a timely pretermination notice meant the court lacked jurisdiction | Held for plaintiff: jurisdiction proper because § 47a-15 prerequisite was met by the prior notice and the recurrence exception applied |
| Whether administrative res judicata barred eviction (administrative claim not preserved at trial) | Plaintiff: no binding adjudication existed and defendant had not preserved res judicata argument | Defendant: the grievance outcome resolved the matter and barred further action | Held for plaintiff: res judicata argument was not properly pleaded or raised below and the informal meeting did not produce a binding decision |
Key Cases Cited
- Waterbury Twin, LLC v. Renal Treatment Centers–Northeast, Inc., 292 Conn. 459 (2009) (discusses consequences of withdrawing or adjudicating summary process suits and notice implications)
- Housing Authority v. Harris, 225 Conn. 600 (1993) (Superior Court has jurisdiction over summary process only where a notice to quit was previously served)
- Marrinan v. Hamer, 5 Conn. App. 101 (1985) (purpose of Kapa/pretermination notice is to discourage summary evictions and allow remedy)
- St. Paul’s Flax Hill Co-operative v. Johnson, 124 Conn. App. 728 (2010) (distinguishes roles and effects of pretermination notice and notice to quit)
- Housing Authority v. Hird, 13 Conn. App. 150 (1988) (case involving summary process where factual posture differed regarding pretermination notice)