RENAISSANCE MANAGEMENT COMPANY, INC. v. ANDRE BARNES ET AL.
(AC 38879)
Lavine, Mullins and Bear, Js.
August 22, 2017
******************************************************************************
The “officially released” date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the “officially released” date appearing in the opinion.
All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the advance release version of an opinion and the latest version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest version is to be considered authoritative.
The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut.
******************************************************************************
RENAISSANCE MANAGEMENT COMPANY, INC. v. ANDRE BARNES ET AL.
(AC 38879)
Lavine, Mullins and Bear, Js.
Syllabus
The plaintiff landlord sought, by way of a summary process action, to obtain possession of an apartment that had been rented to the defendant tenant. The plaintiff served the defendant with a notice to quit possession of the apartment and soon thereafter commenced this action. The defendant filed a special defense claiming that the retaliatory eviction statute (
Argued March 16—officially released August 22, 2017
Procedural History
Summary process action brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of New Haven, Housing Session, where the court, Foti, J., denied the named defendant‘s motion to dismiss; thereafter, the court, Ecker, J., granted the named defendant‘s motion for summary judgment and rendered judgment thereon, from which the plaintiff appealed to this court; subsequently, the court, Ecker, J., issued a corrected memorandum of decision. Appeal dismissed.
Hugh D. Hughes, with whom was David E. Schancupp, for the
Opinion
BEAR, J. In this summary process action for possession of an apartment in New Haven, the plaintiff, Renaissance Management Co., Inc., appeals from the summary judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the defendant Andre Barnes.1 The court granted the defendant‘s motion for summary judgment on the ground that the plaintiff was prohibited by the retaliatory eviction statute;
The following facts and procedural history are not in dispute. The defendant was served with a notice to quit possession of the apartment on September 3, 2014. This summary process action was commenced on September 15, 2014. The defendant filed a special defense claiming that the retaliatory eviction statute,
On August 10, 2015, the defendant moved for summary judgment on the ground that
In its corrected memorandum of decision, the court determined that
The parties agree that, following oral argument before this court on March 16, 2017, the defendant vacated and relinquished possession of the plaintiff‘s property on May 10, 2017. After the parties apprised this court of this fact, we ordered supplemental briefing on the issue of mootness and any possible exceptions thereto because the sole remedy sought by, and available to, the plaintiff in its summary process action was possession of the premises. The parties have since submitted supplemental briefs, and each argues that the “capable of repetition, yet evading review” exception to mootness applies to this case. The plaintiff also argues in its supplemental brief that collateral consequences to the plaintiff will continue without a decision and, thus, the appeal is not moot.
“Mootness is a question of justiciability that must be determined as a threshold matter because it implicates this court‘s subject matter jurisdiction.” Wendy V. v. Santiago, 319 Conn. 540, 545, 125 A.3d 983 (2015). “Justiciability requires (1) that there be an actual controversy between or among the parties to the dispute . . . (2) that the interests of the parties be adverse . . . (3) that the matter in controversy be capable of being adjudicated by judicial power . . . and (4) that the determination of the controversy will result in practical relief to the complainant.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. McElveen, 261 Conn. 198, 217, 802 A.2d 74 (2002). “An actual controversy must exist not only at the time the appeal is taken, but also throughout the pendency of the appeal. . . . When, during the pendency of an appeal, events have occurred that preclude an appellate court from granting any practical relief through its disposition of the merits, a case has become moot.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Emma F., 315 Conn. 414, 423-24, 107 A.3d 947 (2015). “This court has consistently held that an appeal from a summary process judgment becomes moot where, at the time of the appeal, the defendant is no longer in possession of the premises.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Friedman v. Gomez, 172 Conn. App. 254, 260, [159] A.3d [716] (2017).
As the defendant is no longer in possession of the property, the appeal is clearly moot, unless an exception applies and the parties do not contest this conclusion. Recognizing this, the parties argue that the issue raised on appeal, that this court‘s holding in Visco applies to retaliatory eviction defenses brought under
“To qualify under the capable of repetition, yet evading review exception, three requirements must be met. First, the challenged action, or the effect of the challenged action, by its very nature must be of a limited duration so that there is a strong likelihood that the substantial majority of cases raising a question about its validity will become moot before appellate litigation can be concluded. Second, there must be a reasonable likelihood that the question presented in the pending case will arise again in the future, and that it will affect either the same complaining party or a reasonably identifiable group for whom that party can be said to act as surrogate. Third, the question must have some public importance. Unless all three requirements are met, the appeal must be dismissed as moot.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Wendy V. v. Santiago, supra, 319 Conn. 545-46.
“The first element in the analysis pertains to the length of the challenged action. . . . The basis for this element derives from the nature of the exception. If an action or its effects is not of inherently limited duration, the action can be reviewed the next time it arises, when it will present an ongoing live controversy. Moreover, if the question presented is not strongly likely to become moot in the substantial majority of cases in which it arises, the urgency of deciding the pending case is significantly reduced. Thus, there is no reason to reach out to decide the issue as between parties who, by hypothesis, no longer have any present interest in the outcome. . . . [A] party typically satisfies this prong if there exists a functionally insurmountable time [constraint] . . . or the challenged action had an intrinsically limited lifespan.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Priscilla A., 122 Conn. App. 832, 836-37, 2 A.3d 24 (2010).
The present appeal fails to meet the first requirement of the capable of repetition, yet evading review exception. The action challenged in this case is that the plaintiff commenced a summary process action in violation of
Our Supreme Court recently has reached the merits of appeals in summary process cases, including the residential summary process cases of Presidential Village, LLC v. Phillips, 325 Conn. 394, [158] A.3d [772] (2017), and Fairchild Heights, Inc. v. Dickal, 305 Conn. 488, 45 A.3d 627 (2012). This court recently also has reached the merits of appeals in summary process cases, including the residential cases of Holdmeyer v. Thomas, 167 Conn. App. 544, 144 A.3d 1052 (2016) (reversing trial court and holding that plaintiff failed to meet any exceptions to
In the present case, as previously noted in this opinion, the appeal was argued in March, 2017, approximately two and one-half years after the service of the September 3, 2014 notice to quit. When the defendant vacated the premises in May, 2017, this appeal was under consideration by this court. In light of this recent history, we are not persuaded that this court or our Supreme Court will not be able to resolve in a later appeal, with a more complete factual record concerning the fitness and habitability aspect of each of the code violations, whether the Visco fitness and habitability gloss to the meaning of repairs, as set forth in
The plaintiff also argues that it faces collateral consequences from the decision of the trial court such that the appeal is not moot. “Our Supreme Court . . . has allowed us to retain jurisdiction where the matter being appealed creates collateral consequences prejudicial to the interests of the appellant, even though developments during the pendency of the appeal would otherwise render it moot. . . . [T]o invoke successfully the collateral consequences doctrine, the litigant must show that there is a reasonable possibility that prejudicial collateral consequences will occur. Accordingly, the litigant must establish these consequences by more than mere conjecture, but need not demonstrate that these consequences are more probable than not. This standard provides the necessary limitations on justiciability underlying the mootness doctrine itself. Whe[n] there is no direct practical relief available from the reversal of the judgment . . . the collateral consequences doctrine acts as a surrogate, calling for a determination whether a decision in the case can afford the litigant some practical relief in the future.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Iacurci v. Wells, 108 Conn. App. 274, 277, 947 A.2d 1034 (2008).
The plaintiff argues that the failure of this court in this appeal to determine whether the Visco fitness and habitability gloss previously applied to
In summary, the defendant has vacated and surrendered possession of the premises to the plaintiff. In the absence of either party demonstrating the application of a recognized exception to the mootness doctrine, the appeal is moot.
The appeal is dismissed.
In this opinion the other judges concurred.
BEAR, J.