Presidential Village, LLC v. Perkins
209 A.3d 616
Conn.2019Background
- Presidential Village, LLC (landlord) manages HUD project-based Section 8 housing; tenant Tonya Perkins remained month-to-month after a 2010 lease.
- Landlord filed summary process (eviction) in Feb. 2015 alleging sole ground: nonpayment of rent of $1,402 due Jan 1, 2015.
- Prior to suit, landlord served a HUD-required pretermination notice (24 C.F.R. § 247.4) stating a "total rental obligation" of $6,189.56 and listing "delinquent rent, late fees, utilities, legal fees, and any other eviction proceeding sundry cost." The notice did not allocate amounts to particular categories or include a termination date.
- Tenant moved to dismiss, arguing the pretermination notice was jurisdictionally defective because it included charges other than unpaid rent and requested a cure amount inconsistent with the complaint. Trial court granted the motion and dismissed.
- Appellate Court reversed, holding federal law alone governs notice sufficiency and that listing all financial obligations satisfied the HUD requirement to state the dollar amount of the balance due on the "rent account." This Court granted certification.
- The Supreme Court reversed the Appellate Court: the pretermination notice was jurisdictionally defective because it included undesignated nonrent charges and therefore failed the HUD specificity requirement to enable the tenant to prepare a defense.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether "rent account" in 24 C.F.R. § 247.4 includes nonrent obligations (utilities, late fees, attorney fees, repairs) | Landlord: "rent account" can encompass all financial obligations under the lease; listing total obligations satisfies federal specificity requirement | Tenant: "rent account" is limited to rent charges; notice that includes undesignated nonrent charges is defective | Held: "Rent account" is limited to rent charges; inclusion of undesignated nonrent charges rendered notice jurisdictionally defective |
| Whether a pretermination notice must designate which amounts are rent vs. other obligations | Landlord: Overinclusive notice (more info) is not defective; tenant must prepare defense even if notice lists extra obligations | Tenant: Notice must specify dollar amount of unpaid rent so tenant can prepare defense | Held: Notice must specify unpaid rent and designate amounts; failure to do so undermines tenant's ability to prepare a defense |
| Whether defects in a HUD pretermination notice are jurisdictional (dismissal required) or require showing of prejudice | Landlord: Nonjurisdictional; defects should be evaluated for prejudice to tenant | Tenant: Defective notice deprives court of subject matter jurisdiction | Held: Material inaccuracies that impair tenant’s ability to prepare a defense are jurisdictional and warrant dismissal |
| Relevance of state summary process law to evaluating federal pretermination notice sufficiency | Landlord/Appellate Ct: Only federal requirements govern notice sufficiency; state law irrelevant | Tenant: State law (what counts as rent for summary process) informs what landlord may rely on and what tenant must be told | Held: Although decision rests on federal regulation alone, state law can be relevant in some cases; here federal construction of "rent account" controlled and made notice defective |
Key Cases Cited
- Jefferson Garden Associates v. Greene, 202 Conn. 128 (Conn. 1987) (federal pretermination notice requirements and interplay with state summary process law)
- Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (U.S. 1970) (welfare entitlements require procedural due process)
- Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Milhollin, 444 U.S. 555 (U.S. 1980) (meaningful disclosure requires clarity, not merely more information)
- Escalera v. New York City Housing Authority, 425 F.2d 853 (2d Cir. 1970) (small charges can materially affect low-income tenants)
- Caulder v. Durham Housing Authority, 433 F.2d 998 (4th Cir. 1970) (wrongful eviction from subsidized housing causes irreparable harm)
- Miles v. Metropolitan Dade County, 916 F.2d 1528 (11th Cir. 1990) ("tenant rent" construed narrowly; excludes nonrent charges)