Lyons v. Citron
191 A.3d 239
Conn. App. Ct.2018Background
- Lyons (landlord) and the Citrons (tenants) had a one-year residential lease requiring rent due the first of each month.
- Lyons served a first notice to quit for June 2016 nonpayment and filed a summary process action in July 2016.
- On August 4, 2016, Lyons texted the tenants asking for rent; tenants moved to dismiss the first action as the text made the notice equivocal.
- Lyons withdrew the first action on September 6, 2016 and on that same day served a second notice to quit for nonpayment; she filed a second summary process action a week later.
- Defendants moved to dismiss the second action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing withdrawal reinstated the lease and triggered a new nine-day grace period under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 47a-15a.
- Trial court denied the motion, entered judgment for Lyons; the Appellate Court reversed, holding the second notice was premature because it was served within the nine-day grace period after reinstatement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether withdrawal of a prior summary process action reinstates the lease and restarts the rent due date | Lyons: text made the first notice equivocal so lease never terminated; no restart required | Citrons: withdrawal reinstated the lease, making rent due on withdrawal date and starting a new nine-day grace period | Held: Withdrawal reinstates the lease; rent becomes due on withdrawal date and a new nine-day grace period is triggered |
| Whether landlord must wait nine days after reinstatement before serving a new notice to quit for nonpayment | Lyons: need not wait because prior notice was rendered equivocal by her text | Citrons: landlord must wait nine days after withdrawal before serving new notice for nonpayment | Held: Landlord must wait nine days after withdrawal before serving a new notice based on nonpayment |
| Whether a notice to quit served within the nine-day grace period confers subject matter jurisdiction for summary process | Lyons: second notice timely because termination was continuous | Citrons: service within nine days is defective and deprives court of jurisdiction | Held: Notice served within the nine-day period is defective and deprives court of jurisdiction |
| Effect of landlord conduct after serving a notice to quit (e.g., communications) on notice efficacy | Lyons: post-notice text did not prevent termination | Citrons: post-notice conduct can render notice equivocal | Held: Subsequent conduct can show ambivalence and affect efficacy, but here withdrawal controlled reinstatement timing |
Key Cases Cited
- Waterbury Twin, LLC v. Renal Treatment Centers-Northeast, Inc., 292 Conn. 459 (2009) (valid notice to quit is a jurisdictional prerequisite for summary process)
- Bayer v. Showmotion, Inc., 292 Conn. 381 (2009) (standard for reviewing subject matter jurisdiction challenges based on defective notice to quit)
- Bridgeport v. Barbour-Daniel Electronics, Inc., 16 Conn. App. 574 (1988) (failure to comply with statutory notice timing deprives court of jurisdiction)
- Centrix Management Co., LLC v. Valencia, 132 Conn. App. 582 (2011) (post-notice conduct may render a notice equivocal)
- Housing Authority v. Hird, 13 Conn. App. 150 (1988) (withdrawal of action restores lease and prospective application of lease terms)
- Sproviero v. J.M. Scott Associates, Inc., 108 Conn. App. 454 (2008) (lease reinstatement after withdrawal; terms apply prospectively)