Wilkes v. Thomson
155 Conn.App. 278
Conn. App. Ct.2015Background
- Plaintiff Wilkes brought a summary process action in Sept. 2012 seeking immediate possession for alleged nonpayment of rent and after serving a notice to quit.
- Notice to quit listed two grounds: nonpayment of rent and termination of privilege to occupy (alternative grounds).
- Defendants Kevin and Christina Thomson moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing the second ground was inapplicable and rendered the notice equivocal. The court denied that motion.
- Defendants later vacated the premises (May 29, 2013); the court granted a subsequent motion to dismiss as moot because the sole requested relief (possession) was rendered unnecessary.
- Defendants then sought attorney’s fees under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-150bb as prevailing parties; the trial court denied fees, finding they had not successfully defended the action on the merits. The defendants appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the notice to quit defective such that the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction? | The notice was valid and not ambiguous; alternative grounds are permitted. | The notice was equivocal because it pleaded nonpayment and lack of a valid lease simultaneously, depriving the court of jurisdiction. | Notice complied with § 47a-23(a); alternative grounds do not render notice defective. |
| Were defendants prevailing parties entitled to attorney's fees under § 42-150bb because the court wrongly denied their jurisdictional dismissal? | Wilkes: denial of that motion means defendants did not prevail; a denial is not a prevailing judgment. | Denial of the jurisdictional motion was erroneous; if granted, defendants would have prevailed and be entitled to fees. | A party does not "prevail" by filing a denied dispositive motion; only a successful appeal/remand victory would allow fee claim. |
| Were defendants entitled to fees because the case was dismissed as moot after they vacated the premises? | Plaintiff: dismissal as moot was voluntary relief by defendants; they did not prevail on the merits and thus are not entitled to fees. | Defendants: dismissal rendered them the successful party; they obtained the relief and thus should be prevailing parties. | Dismissal for mootness after voluntary vacatur does not constitute a successful defense on the merits; fees denied. |
| Does § 42-150bb permit fee awards to a defendant who "successfully defends" a lease-based summary process action? | Wilkes: statute applies where defendant successfully defends on the merits. | Defendants: argued they successfully defended either by jurisdictional dismissal or mootness dismissal. | Statute can award fees to a prevailing defendant, but here defendants did not successfully defend on the merits; statute did not mandate fees. |
Key Cases Cited
- Centrix Management Co., LLC v. Valencia, 145 Conn. App. 682 (2013) (recognizes prevailing defendant in summary process may be entitled to attorney's fees)
- Lampasona v. Jacobs, 209 Conn. 724 (1989) (proper notice to quit is a jurisdictional prerequisite to summary process)
- Firstlight Hydro Generating Co. v. First Black Ink, LLC, 143 Conn. App. 635 (2013) (jurisdictional issue regarding notice to quit reviewed plenarily)
- Dreier v. Upjohn Co., 196 Conn. 242 (1985) (alternative pleading is permissible)
- Norwalk Mall Venture v. Mijo, Inc., 11 Conn. App. 360 (1987) (alternative reasons in notice to quit acceptable)