144 Conn. App. 188
Conn. App. Ct.2013Background
- Anna T. Poliansky and her husband jointly purchased three adjoining parcels (84.5 acres) used for commercial/recreational purposes; no residences on the property.
- Andrew Poliansky ran a gravel business; after his retirement and until his death in 2010, the Poliansky family (Steven, Darby, and their children Kyle and Anna P.) were allowed to access and, for Steven/Darby, to operate businesses on the property without written leases.
- Upon Andrew’s death, Anna became sole owner and sought to rent or sell the land to supplement her income; she asked the occupants to pay rent or vacate but they refused.
- Anna served a notice to quit dated April 27, 2011 (served April 28, 2011) citing General Statutes § 47a-23(a)(3) (occupant originally had a right/privilege that has terminated); summary process action followed and trial court awarded immediate possession to Anna.
- Defendants raised special defenses: (1) alleged ownership interest (gift or testamentary promise from Andrew) and (2) that Kyle and Anna P.’s occupancy should be treated differently (Anna P. turned 18 the same day as the notice; minors need not be named on notices).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of § 47a-23(a)(3) notice to quit | Anna: a notice served when owner revokes permission is sufficient; the statute permits termination and notice contemporaneously | Defs: the phrase “has terminated” requires termination before the notice is served; the notice cannot itself be the termination | Held: notice was valid; present perfect allows termination "just completed" at service and statute does not require prior separate notice |
| Applicability of (a)(3) vs (a)(2) for grandchildren (Anna P. and Kyle) | Anna: both grandchildren had permission to be on property and that permission was revoked, so (a)(3) applies | Defs: Anna P. turned 18 on notice date (claiming she never had a separate right as an adult); Kyle claims lack of prior notice and not party to prior action | Held: (a)(3) properly cited — court found both had been permitted to occupy and that permission terminated when notice was served; service date (Apr 28) made Anna P. an adult for purposes of the notice |
| Evidentiary rulings re: personal property (equipment) | Anna: testimony/list relevant because she sought to restrain removal of personal property | Defs: admission prevented fair rebuttal and skewed the record | Held: no abuse of discretion; court deferred relevance, later declined to decide ownership and treated issue as immaterial to possession determination |
| Admission of partial deposition & expert appraisal | Anna: partial deposition admissible for impeachment; expert appraisal ordered by earlier judge for use/occupancy issues | Defs: partial transcript prejudicial without full transcript; appraisal testimony lacked proper disclosure and was prejudicial | Held: partial deposition admissible for impeachment; defendants could have offered full transcript. Expert testimony did not prejudice outcome because court did not decide use/occupancy (appraisal immaterial). |
Key Cases Cited
- Bayer v. Showmotion, Inc., 292 Conn. 381 (court’s plenary review on jurisdictional effect of notice to quit)
- Schieffelin & Co. v. Dept. of Liquor Control, 194 Conn. 165 (present perfect tense indicates action begun in past and just completed)
- Centrix Management Co., LLC v. Valencia, 132 Conn. App. 582 (service of a notice to quit can itself terminate a lease)
- Sullivan v. Lazzari, 135 Conn. App. 831 (summary process statutes are to be narrowly construed; historical context of § 47a-23 amendments)
- Viera v. Cohen, 283 Conn. 412 (trial court’s evidentiary rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion and prejudice)
- United Technologies Corp. v. East Windsor, 262 Conn. 11 (trier of fact is sole arbiter of witness credibility)
- Zatakia v. Ecoair Corp., 128 Conn. App. 362 (findings of fact reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard)