396 A.2d 146 | Conn. Super. Ct. | 1978
In this action for summary process for nonpayment of rent, the plaintiff, Evergreen Corporation (Evergreen), sought to regain possession of the apartment which the defendant occupied at 9 Evergreen Avenue, Hartford. The notice to quit possession and the complaint, claiming nonpayment of rent, were served on the defendant. The defendant claims that he was justified in not paying rent because of certain alleged leaks and because of peeling paint in his apartment. The trial court found for the plaintiff and the defendant has appealed from the judgment rendered for the plaintiff. The defendant claims that the trial court committed *550
five principal errors, namely, (1) in hearing the case, because it lacked jurisdiction to decide the issue since the form of the notice to quit possession did not comport with General Statutes
The defendant has assigned numerous other errors, many of which are merged into the five principal issues briefed, and several of which are not briefed and are, therefore, considered abandoned. State v. Brown,
The defendant's first principal issue on appeal is that the court did not have jurisdiction to hear this case because the form of the notice to quit possession did not comply with the requirements of General Statutes
The defect claimed by the defendant is that the notice was not properly signed. The notice was signed "by John Haymond, Attorney." Haymond is the attorney for Evergreen. General Statutes
The next error the defendant claims is that there was no evidence produced at trial that Evergreen owned the apartment building located at 9 Evergreen Avenue, and that, therefore, Evergreen was not a proper party under General Statutes
The defendant next claims that the trial court erred in concluding that the defendant was not justified in withholding his rent since the facts set forth in the finding do not support that conclusion. The defendant's answer to the plaintiff's complaint included two special defenses to the summary process action for failure to pay rent. Those special defenses alleged that the plaintiff had failed to maintain the premises in a manner conforming to the Hartford housing code, that the plaintiff had failed to maintain the apartment facilities in food and safe working order in violation of General Statutes
The defendant's assignments of error and brief claim error in the court's conclusion that the defendant failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the conditions complained of justified the withholding of the rent. The defendant claims the conclusion is not supported by the facts found in the finding. In the finding the subordinate facts were adequately keyed to the evidence presented and the conclusion was based upon the subordinate facts found. Therefore, our inquiry is limited to determining whether the subordinate facts found support this conclusion. Norwalk v. Trombetta,
The defendant also claims that he was wrongfully deprived of the opportunity to raise the defense of illegality of contract in this summary process action. He contends that the month-to-month tenancy agreement between himself and the plaintiff was illegal and void as against public policy because it was discriminatory and in violation of General Statutes
These assignments of error are logically and legally without merit. It has always been the policy of the law to limit issues in summary process actions within the express scope of the statutory provisions. Webb v. Ambler,
The defendant's final claim of error on appeal is that he was improperly deprived of the right to a jury trial in this summary process action. Although General Statutes
There is no error.
A. HEALEY, PARSKEY and A. ARMENTANO, JS., participated in this decision.