Presidential Village, LLC v. Perkins
170 A.3d 701
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Presidential Village, LLC (landlord) leased a HUD-subsidized unit to Tonya Perkins (tenant) on a month-to-month basis; tenant allegedly failed to pay January 2015 rent.
- On January 14, 2015 the landlord sent a federal pretermination notice citing "material noncompliance" for nonpayment and listing a "Total Rental Obligation" of $6,189.56 with a month-by-month chart of charges.
- Tenant did not pay or meet with landlord within the 10‑day period; landlord served a state notice to quit and then sued in summary process for possession (nonpayment of rent).
- Tenant moved to dismiss, arguing the federal pretermination notice was defective (overstated/merged nonrent charges into "rent" and failed to specify cure amount), depriving the court of subject matter jurisdiction.
- Trial court granted the motion to dismiss; landlord appealed to the Connecticut Appellate Court.
- The appellate court considered whether the federal pretermination notice complied with federal regulations governing termination of federally subsidized tenancies (24 C.F.R. §§ 247.3, 247.4).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the federal pretermination notice complied with 24 C.F.R. § 247.4 (specificity) so as to permit summary process | Notice met federal requirements by stating reason (nonpayment), giving a dollar balance ($6,189.56) and date of computation, and providing month‑by‑month detail | Notice was defective because it misstated the actual cure amount and lumped nonrent charges (late fees, attorney fees) into a single "rental obligation," misleading tenant | Court held the notice substantially complied with 24 C.F.R. §§ 247.3/.4: it stated the termination ground and dollar balance with computation date and sufficient month‑by‑month detail, so it was not jurisdictionally defective |
| Whether the pretermination notice must provide an "opportunity to cure" (amount needed to avoid termination) | Landlord argued federal regs require only enough specificity to prepare a defense, not an explicit cure amount or cure procedure | Tenant argued notice should specify amount required to cure to avoid termination | Court held 24 C.F.R. § 247.4 requires specificity to prepare a defense, not an opportunity to cure or a required cure amount; federal regs do not mandate cure information |
Key Cases Cited
- Jefferson Garden Associates v. Greene, 202 Conn. 128 (Conn. 1987) (federal termination notice must be judged by its purpose—enable tenant to prepare a defense)
- Housing Authority v. DeRoche, 112 Conn. App. 355 (Conn. App. 2009) (landlord must comply with preconditions of state and federal law before summary process)
- Housing Authority v. Martin, 95 Conn. App. 802 (Conn. App. 2006) (federal law requires a pretermination notice before eviction proceedings in subsidized housing)
- Beecher v. Mohegan Tribe of Indians of Connecticut, 282 Conn. 130 (Conn. 2007) (standard of review for motion to dismiss attacking jurisdiction is de novo)
- Farley v. Philadelphia Housing Authority, 102 F.3d 697 (3d Cir. 1996) (reciprocal principle that recipients of HUD funds must follow federal tenancy rules)
- Housing Authority & Urban Redevelopment Agency v. Taylor, 171 N.J. 580 (N.J. 2002) (discussed by trial court: Brooke Amendment limits what counts as "rent," but the appellate court distinguishes Taylor as addressing rent-amount limits rather than pretermination notice content)