209 Conn.App. 569
Conn. App. Ct.2022Background
- Tenant Bruce Stevens (leased 2013) lived in public housing for disabled/elderly and has psychiatric disabilities; hospitalizations occurred in 2019.
- On March 26, 2019 property manager inspected Stevens’ apartment after police removed him; photographs documented filth, trash blocking exits, clogged sink/toilet, grease/fire hazard, removed smoke‑alarm batteries, ripped floor tiles.
- On March 27, 2019 the Housing Authority served a notice to quit alleging serious nuisance under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 47a‑15(B) and (C); summons and complaint followed April 17, 2019.
- Stevens answered, raised disability/accommodation defenses, and moved to dismiss for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction because no pretermination (Kapa) notice was given.
- At trial the court found insufficient proof for § 47a‑15(B) (wilful destruction) but concluded the apartment’s condition presented an "immediate and serious danger" to other tenants under § 47a‑15(C), entered judgment for the Housing Authority, and Stevens appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Did failure to serve a pretermination notice deprive the court of subject‑matter jurisdiction? | Housing Authority: pretermination notice not required when eviction is based on "serious nuisance" under §47a‑15; notice to quit complied with §47a‑23. | Stevens: his conduct did not amount to a serious nuisance, so the Kapa/pretermination notice was required and its absence deprived the court of jurisdiction. | Court: No jurisdictional defect—service of a §47a‑23 notice to quit alleging serious nuisance satisfied jurisdiction; whether conduct actually was a serious nuisance is a merits issue. |
| 2) Did Stevens’ acts/omissions constitute a "serious nuisance" under §47a‑15(C)? | Housing Authority: apartment condition (squalid, unsanitary, fire and egress hazards, inoperable fixtures, trash blocking exits) posed immediate, serious danger to other tenants. | Stevens: disputed characterization; argued actions (e.g., moving tiles) were not a serious danger and contested findings. | Court: Affirmed—trial record (testimony + photos) supports finding that apartment condition presented immediate and serious danger; finding not clearly erroneous. |
| 3) Are Stevens’ claims about erroneous factual findings regarding reasonable accommodation and implicit bias reviewable? | Housing Authority: (implicitly) issues not adequately briefed; record shows attempts to accommodate and no formal accommodation request. | Stevens: argued the court erred in finding he was reasonably accommodated and claimed implicit bias by the court. | Court: Declined to review—Stevens failed to brief these claims or cite applicable law; issues were abandoned on appeal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cardinal Realty Investors, LLC v. Bernasconi, 287 Conn. 136 (2008) (holding landlord need not give pretermination notice when eviction is based on serious nuisance)
- Josephine Towers, L.P. v. Kelly, 199 Conn. App. 829 (2020) (explaining landlord may serve notice to quit alleging serious nuisance and proceed under §§47a‑23–47a‑23b)
- Bayer v. Showmotion, Inc., 292 Conn. 381 (2009) (summary process statutes are special, must be narrowly construed and strictly followed)
- Lampasona v. Jacobs, 209 Conn. 724 (1989) (discussing when factual inquiry is necessary to determine the court’s jurisdiction over a general class of cases)
- St. Paul’s Flax Hill Co‑op. v. Johnson, 124 Conn. App. 728 (2010) (distinguishing notice to quit from pretermination notice and describing notice to quit as typically terminating the lease)