211 Conn.App. 528
Conn. App. Ct.2022Background
- Ansonia Housing Authority leased Unit 65 to Daryl Parks; rent $350/month. Pretermination notice for nonpayment sent Jan 13, 2020; tenant did not respond.
- Landlord served notice to quit Feb 7, 2020, and filed a summary process summons and complaint Feb 15, 2020 seeking possession.
- Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction (alleging defective pretermination notice); trial court granted the motion and dismissed the action on Mar 24, 2021.
- Plaintiff filed a motion to reargue Apr 12, 2021 (19 days after dismissal); the motion was denied Aug 10, 2021. Plaintiff appealed Aug 13, 2021.
- Defendant moved to dismiss the appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on timeliness grounds; this court granted the motion and dismissed the appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the five-day appeal period in Conn. Gen. Stat. § 47a-35 applies only to tenants | §47a-35 was intended to limit tenant appeals, not landlord appeals | §47a-35 is plain: “No appeal shall be taken” — applies to any party | Applies to both landlords and tenants; language is clear and policy favors swift resolution |
| Whether an untimely motion to reargue creates a new appeal period | Filing a motion to reargue (even after five days) starts a new appeal period upon denial | A motion filed after the statutory five days cannot toll or restart the appeal period | An untimely motion to reargue does not toll or create a new appeal period; plaintiff’s motion was filed after five days and thus did not save the appeal |
| Whether the court may review denial of the untimely motion to reargue on appeal | Plaintiff sought review of the denial and the underlying legal ruling | Defendant argued the appeal concerns merits of the dismissal and is untimely, so no jurisdiction | Court lacks jurisdiction to review the denial because the claims on appeal attack the merits of the underlying judgment; allowing review would effectively extend the statutory appeal period |
| Whether §47a-35’s time limit is jurisdictional | Plaintiff suggested procedural relief might cure timeliness | Defendant relied on precedent that the provision is jurisdictional | The five-day requirement is jurisdictional for summary process appeals and must be strictly followed |
Key Cases Cited
- Young v. Young, 249 Conn. 482 (1999) (summary process appeals are governed by § 47a-35; a timely motion to reargue tolls the five-day period)
- HUD/Barbour-Waverly v. Wilson, 235 Conn. 650 (1995) (§ 47a-35’s five-day appeal requirement is jurisdictional)
- Presidential Village, LLC v. Perkins, 332 Conn. 45 (2019) (addresses jurisdictional issues and pretermination notice requirements in summary process context)
- Lopez v. Livingston, 53 Conn. App. 622 (1999) (appellate review of denial of untimely postjudgment motion may be permitted when the appeal challenges denial discretion, not merits)
- Tiber Holding Corp. v. Greenberg, 36 Conn. App. 670 (1995) (denial of untimely reconsideration cannot be used as a vehicle to challenge merits and extend appeal time)
- Jobe v. Commissioner of Correction, 334 Conn. 636 (2020) (statutory interpretation principle: start with text; if plain and unambiguous, do not consider extratextual evidence)
- State v. Bemer, 339 Conn. 528 (2021) (reaffirming that extratextual evidence is barred when statutory language is plain)