161 Conn.App. 668
Conn. App. Ct.2015Background
- Kenosia Commons, a cooperative mobile home park corporation, sued Cynthia and Candra DaCosta in summary process for nonpayment of lot rent after a notice to quit; defendants remained in possession.
- The DaCostas occupied lot 10 under an oral lease; monthly lot rent was $425 and arrearage exceeded $2,000 as of May 2014.
- Cynthia testified she purchased the manufactured home and paid $2,500 for twelve shares in the cooperative when she moved in.
- At trial the court questioned whether Cynthia was both a shareholder (owner) and a tenant, which could affect the availability of summary process remedies.
- The trial court concluded Cynthia’s share ownership made her an owner/tenant outside the statutory summary process framework and denied the plaintiff’s motion for judgment of possession.
- The plaintiff appealed, arguing that statutory definitions control and a shareholder is not necessarily an ‘‘owner’’ of the park for purposes of § 21-80; the appellate court reversed and remanded for factual findings on nonpayment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Cynthia’s ownership of corporate shares makes her an "owner" of the mobile home park and therefore immune from summary process under § 21-80 | Shareholder status does not make an individual the park "owner" under § 21-64(7); statutory definitions control so summary process is available for resident nonpayment | Shareholder (twelve shares) is effectively a co-owner/tenant such that bylaws and corporate status remove her from summary process protections for residents | Court held shareholder status alone does not make Cynthia an "owner" of the park; she is a resident subject to summary process under §§ 21-64 and 21-80 |
| Whether the trial court made adequate factual findings on the underlying rent default | Plaintiff argued trial evidence showed arrearage and nonpayment after notice to quit, entitling it to possession if proved | Defendant argued financial hardship and disputes over tender; trial court relied on ownership issue and denied possession without resolving payment facts | Appellate court reversed and remanded because the trial court failed to make necessary findings on whether defendants breached the oral lease by nonpayment |
Key Cases Cited
- Southland Corp. v. Vernon, 1 Conn. App. 439 (1984) (summary process ultimate issue is right to possession; cooperative corporations may bring possession actions)
- Prevedini v. Mobil Oil Corp., 164 Conn. 287 (1973) (summary process is a statutory, expedited remedy for landlords)
- Wilton Meadows Ltd. Partnership v. Coratolo, 299 Conn. 819 (2011) (statutory construction principles; start with plain language and related statutes)
- Broadnax v. New Haven, 284 Conn. 237 (2007) (interpret related statutes to form a consistent, coherent body of law)