Ossen v. Kreutzer

563 A.2d 741, 19 Conn. App. 564, 1989 Conn. App. LEXIS 299
CourtConnecticut Appellate Court
DecidedSeptember 5, 1989
Docket7297
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 563 A.2d 741 (Ossen v. Kreutzer) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Appellate Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Ossen v. Kreutzer, 563 A.2d 741, 19 Conn. App. 564, 1989 Conn. App. LEXIS 299 (Colo. Ct. App. 1989).

Opinion

Foti, J.

The plaintiff appeals from the judgment dismissing his summary process action. The sole issue presented in this appeal is whether, as a jurisdictional prerequisite to a summary process action initiated pursuant to General Statutes § 21-80 (b) (3) (B),1 the plaintiff must allege in his complaint a “preliminary and distinct thirty day written notice period.”

[566]*566The facts are not in dispute. On December 3, 1987, the plaintiff lessor and the defendant lessee entered into a written lease for the rental of a mobile home lot. Under the terms of the lease, the defendant agreed to pay an annual rent of $2280, payable in twelve monthly installments of $190, each to be paid on the first of each month beginning in January, 1988. The defendant took possession and subsequently failed to pay the rent due [567]*567for the months of February, March, April and May of 1988. By way of a notice to quit possession dated May 12, 1988, and served upon the defendant on May 14, 1988, the plaintiff notified the defendant to vacate the lot on or before June 16,1988. The notice to quit stated the total arrearage due. The notice to quit served upon the defendant was referred to in the complaint and appended as an exhibit. The defendant did not tender the arrearage prior to June 16,1988,2 and remains in possession.

On August 10, 1988, the trial court held a hearing and determined sua sponte that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear the plaintiffs claim because the plaintiff failed to comply with General Statutes § 21-80 (b) (3) (B). The trial court interpreted that statute to require the plaintiff, as a prerequisite to the institution of a summary process action, to give the defendant an additional thirty days notice as required under General Statutes § 47a-15.3 Because we conclude that the only notice requirements applicable to a summary process action initiated under § 21-80 for nonpayment of rent are clearly set forth in § 21-80 (b) (3) (B) and that no separate, preliminary notice period is required, we find error.

[568]*568“As a condition precedent to a summary process action, proper notice to quit is a jurisdictional necessity.” Lampasona v. Jacobs, 209 Conn. 724, 729, 553 A.2d 175 (1989). Section 21-80 (b) (3) applies to summary process actions involving mobile home parks. Id. Notwithstanding the provisions of § 47a-23, the general summary process statute, when a tenant, as in this case, breaches her lease by failing to pay rent, and the landlord seeks to terminate the tenancy, the landlord must follow the procedures enunciated in § 21-80 (b) (3) (B). Under that section, to effectuate the termination the landlord must give the resident thirty days written notice and that notice must state the total arrearage due. If the tenant tenders the total arrearage due within the thirty day notice period provided in this section, the landlord “shall not maintain or proceed with the summary process action.” General Statutes § 21-80 (b) (3) (B). The purpose for reciting the total arrearage due in the notice is to afford the tenant a final opportunity to save the tenancy by tendering the total arrearage within the thirty day grace period. If tender is made within the grace period, the statute bars further action by the landlord. Thus, under [569]*569the plain language of § 21.-80 (b) (3) (B), the prerequisites to the maintenance of a summary process action for nonpayment of rent are a written thirty day notification to the tenant and a statement of the total arrearage due. Section 21-80 (b) (3) (B) does not, as the trial court found, require a separate, preliminary notice period pursuant to § 47a-15.

Section 47a-15 applies to residential apartments generally; Hoban v. Masters, 36 Conn. Sup. 611, 613, 421 A.2d 1318 (1980); and provides that under certain circumstances, in which a tenant fails to comply with his or her rental obligations under § 47a-ll, the landlord is required to deliver to the tenant a written notice “specifying the acts or omissions constituting the breach” and to give the tenant thirty days to abate the violation or risk the termination of the tenancy. This notice provision has been interpreted to be separate from and preliminary to the maintenance of a summary process action pursuant to § 47a-23. See Marrinan v. Hamer, 5 Conn. App. 101, 104, 497 A.2d 67 (1985); Kapa Associates v. Flores, 35 Conn. Sup. 274, 278, 408 A.2d 22 (1979).

The trial court’s reliance on § 47a-15 in a case involving a summary process action to regain possession of a mobile home lot, and one involving nonpayment of rent, was misplaced. First, § 47a-15 is inapplicable to proceedings initiated under § 21-80. Section § 21-80 (b) (4) provides that unless otherwise specified, “proceedings under this chapter shall be prescribed under Chapter 832,” the general summary process chapter. General Statutes § 47a-15 is located in chapter 830 of the General Statutes and, therefore, does not apply to proceedings involving mobile home parks. Furthermore, even if we were to assume that § 47a-15 was applicable, the plain language of this section exempts a landlord from compliance with its notice provisions in cases where the breach of the rental agreement is based on a tenant’s nonpayment of rent.

[570]*570Second, § 21-80 includes a notice provision similar to that prescribed by § 47a-15 and, like § 47a-15, does not apply where the termination of lease is based on the tenant’s failure to pay rent. That proposition is supported by the plain language of § 21-80 (b) (2), which states that a landlord “may not maintain a summary process action under subparagraph (B), (C) or (D) of subdivision (1) of this subsection prior to delivering a written notice to the resident specifying the acts or omissions constituting the action or inaction complained of and allowing the resident twenty-one days to remedy such complaint.” That section, like § 47a-15, provides a separate and preliminary notice requirement to allow a tenant in a mobile home park to abate the claimed violation. The twenty-one day notice period is required, however, only when the tenant’s noncompliance with his lease obligations is based on one of the subdivisions enumerated in § 21-80 (b) (2), including subparagraphs (B), (C) or (D). The reason of nonpayment of rent, listed as subparagraph (A), is specifically excluded from the preliminary notice requirements of § 21-80 (b) (2).

We conclude that under § 21-80, when a landlord seeks to terminate a tenancy for nonpayment of rent, only the notice requirements set forth in § 21-80 (b) (3) (B) are applicable. Although we recognize that the provisions of § 21-80 (b) (3) (B) were designed to afford greater protection to mobile manufactured home owners who rent lots than other tenants, the law does not require a preliminary and distinct thirty day written notice pursuant to §21-80 (b)(3) (B).

There is error, the judgment is set aside and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

In this opinion the other judges concurred.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Colonial Investors, LLC v. Furbush
167 A.3d 987 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 2017)
St. Paul's Flax Hill Co-Operative v. Johnson
6 A.3d 1168 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 2010)
Chipperini v. Crandall
253 F. Supp. 2d 301 (D. Connecticut, 2003)
Chelsea Data v. North Star Management, No. Cv21-12111 (Jul. 9, 2002)
2002 Conn. Super. Ct. 9087 (Connecticut Superior Court, 2002)
MacGall Associates v. Sierra, No. Spn 9701 25714 (Mar. 18, 1997)
1997 Conn. Super. Ct. 706 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1997)
East Hartford Housing Authority v. Lundy, No. Sph 87718 (Dec. 3, 1996)
1996 Conn. Super. Ct. 6388 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1996)
Nathan Hale Apartments v. Mortenson, No. Spn 960724513nb (Nov. 26, 1996)
1996 Conn. Super. Ct. 10200 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1996)
Stamford Apartments, Inc. v. Uva, No. Spno 9508-17851 (Sep. 27, 1995)
1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 11214 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1995)
Homicki v. Geremko, No. 81161 (Jun. 20, 1995)
1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 7429 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1995)
Housing Authority v. Harris
625 A.2d 816 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1993)
Housing Authority v. Harris
611 A.2d 934 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1992)
Ossen v. Wanat
571 A.2d 134 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1990)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
563 A.2d 741, 19 Conn. App. 564, 1989 Conn. App. LEXIS 299, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ossen-v-kreutzer-connappct-1989.