Presidential Village, LLC v. Phillips
158 A.3d 772
| Conn. | 2017Background
- Melissa Phillips (defendant) lived in a federally subsidized apartment leased from Presidential Village, LLC; the lease prohibited pets but allowed service/comfort animals as reasonable accommodations.
- Phillips kept a dog, Mellow, that had lived in the unit under the prior tenant (her mother); after her mother’s death Phillips continued to keep Mellow and later obtained a letter from a physician and social worker saying the dog provided comfort to her niece M.
- Plaintiff served pretermination and notice to quit for the pet violation and brought a summary process (eviction) action; at trial Phillips asserted an equitable nonforfeiture defense and presented evidence of M’s need for emotional support.
- The trial court found Phillips had complied with the “spirit” of HUD regulations, weighed the equities, and granted equitable relief allowing Mellow to remain; plaintiff appealed.
- The Supreme Court held the appeal was not moot (a later invalid notice to quit did not terminate the lease) but reversed the trial court for improperly relying on the “spirit” of federal disability regulations and for not properly balancing equitable harms; the court remanded for a new hearing on the equitable defense.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mootness: whether a later summary process action (invalid notice) mooted the appeal | Second (invalid) notice to quit did not terminate the lease; appeal not moot | Second action reinstated tenancy or dismissal restored lease, so appeal is moot | Appeal not moot; invalid notice to quit did not terminate the lease |
| Trial court’s reliance on HUD regulations’ “spirit” to grant equitable relief | Trial court improperly relied on the "spirit" of HUD/federal disability regs despite no evidence M had a qualifying disability | Relief proper under equitable nonforfeiture; defendant satisfied Fellows factors and pleadings gave notice | Trial court abused discretion: record lacked proof any occupant had a qualifying disability, so relying on the regulations’ spirit was improper |
| Whether equitable nonforfeiture was properly applied/balanced | Court failed to properly weigh landlord’s harm and plaintiff lacked notice to present equity-related evidence | Defendant adequately pleaded an equitable defense and court could consider disproportionate harm to tenant | Remand for new hearing; trial court’s balancing was tainted by focus on federal accommodation merits rather than equitable factors |
| Admissibility of physician/social worker letter | Letter inadmissible hearsay; § 52-174(b) limited to personal injury cases | § 52-174(b) applies to "all other civil actions" including summary process; letter admissible as treatment report | Letter was properly admitted under § 52-174(b) (statute applies to summary process actions) |
Key Cases Cited
- Fellows v. Martin, 217 Conn. 57 (Conn. 1991) (articulating equitable nonforfeiture factors)
- Cumberland Farms, Inc. v. Dairy Mart, Inc., 225 Conn. 771 (Conn. 1993) (equitable defenses in summary process)
- Waterbury Twin, LLC v. Renal Treatment Centers–Northeast, Inc., 292 Conn. 459 (Conn. 2009) (invalid notice to quit is equivocal and does not terminate lease)
- Housing Authority v. Hird, 13 Conn. App. 150 (Conn. App. 1988) (withdrawing invalid eviction action restores parties to original lease status)
- Connecticut Light & Power Co. v. Lighthouse Landings, Inc., 279 Conn. 90 (Conn. 2006) (landlord’s injury reparable by money vs. forfeiture)
- Lopiano v. Lopiano, 247 Conn. 356 (Conn. 1998) (interpretation/history of § 52-174(b))
- Rhode v. Milla, 287 Conn. 731 (Conn. 2008) (standard of review for § 52-174(b) evidentiary rulings)