HOUSING AUTHORITY OF NORWALK v. Brown
129 Conn. App. 313
Conn. App. Ct.2011Background
- Housing Authority of the City of Norwalk (landlord) sued Gloria Brown (tenant) in summary process for possession of 261 Ely Avenue, Norwalk, based on a breach related to a household member's drug activity.
- Brown and her son George Kalu were occupants; Kalu’s drug-related arrests occurred in 2006 and 2008, with 2008 arrest at a housing authority complex.
- Brown signed a lease on April 1, 2008, initially for one month, then renewed automatically month-to-month; Kalu was an authorized occupant.
- Pretermination notice was issued August 5, 2008 after Kalu’s 2008 drug-related conduct; a notice to quit was served September 17, 2008 requiring vacancy by September 24, 2008.
- Brown defended on multiple special defenses, but the trial court found she breached the lease by allowing drug-related activity and did not cure the breach.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Kalu’s drug activity breached Brown’s lease | Brown breached the lease due to Kalu’s drug activity | Brown contends not all drug activity on the premises is attributable to her breach | Yes, breach established; drug activity by a household member supports termination |
| Whether § 47a-15 permits curing drug-related breaches | 47a-15 cannot cure drug-related breach | Cure possible if activity ceases (Kalu’s incarceration as cure) | § 47a-15 does not permit curing drug-related breaches; eviction upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- Shelton v. Olowosoyo, 125 Conn.App. 286 (2010) (clearly erroneous standard; summary process principles)
- Housing Authority v. DeRoche, 112 Conn. App. 355 (2009) (preconditions for summary process; notice to quit)
- McCoy v. Commissioner of Public Safety, 300 Conn. 144 (2011) (statutory interpretation of § 47a-15; cure provisions ambiguous)
- Scarborough v. Winn Residential, LLP, 890 A.2d 249 (D.C.2006) (no cure for drug-related breaches; One-Strike Policy guidance)
- Housing Authority v. Martin, 95 Conn.App. 802 (2006) (not all breaches are curable under § 47a-15)
- Department of Housing & Urban Development v. Rucker, 535 U.S. 125 (2002) (federal no-fault evictions; discretion to evict for drug activity)