124 Conn. App. 728
Conn. App. Ct.2010Background
- Cooperative housing owned unit subject to HUD regulation; plaintiff served pretermination notice and notice to quit on defendant on Nov 18, 2008; defendant not a party to the lease/occupancy agreement; defendant alleged lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to simultaneous notices; defendant claimed §47a-23a three-day return defect; trial court denied motions and entered judgment for plaintiff; defendant appeals claiming notice defects and late return; court held defendant not entitled to §47a-15 protections and late return does not defeat subject matter jurisdiction, affirming judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether simultaneous pretermination notice and notice to quit deprive jurisdiction | Johnson not a tenant, §47a-15 inapplicable | Simultaneous service violated cure period and deprived jurisdiction | §47a-15 does not apply; no dismissal on this ground |
| Whether late return under §47a-23a affects subject matter jurisdiction | Late return voidable but not jurisdictional issue | Late return challenges court’s jurisdiction | Late return does not implicate subject matter jurisdiction; court's denial upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- Young v. Young, 249 Conn. 482 (1999) (summary process must be narrowly construed and followed)
- Bayer v. Showmotion, Inc., 292 Conn. 381 (2009) (proper notice to quit is a jurisdictional prerequisite)
- Urban v. Prims, 35 Conn.Supp. 233 (1979) (§ 47a-23 dispossession of trespassers/squatters)
- Saunders v. Firtel, 293 Conn. 515 (2009) (statutory interpretation of § 1-2z and ambiguity analysis)
- Ossen v. Kreutzer, 19 Conn.App. 564 (1989) (predecessor notices separated; cure periods)