Sand Dollar Develop. Group v. Michael, No. Spnh 9610-48736 (Mar. 10, 1997)

Connecticut Superior Court

Sand Dollar Develop. Group v. Michael, No. Spnh 9610-48736 (Mar. 10, 1997)

1997 Conn. Super. Ct. 704

Connecticut Superior Court·Decided March 10, 1997·No. No. SPNH 9610-48736·Unpublished

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO REARGUE In addition to the reasons given in my February 18, 1997 memorandum of decision, the instant case is distinguishable fromDiCostanzo v. Tripoli, 137 Conn. 513, 515 (1951), on which the defendant relies, and from the cases cited in DiCostanzo —Welk v. Bidwell, 136 Conn. 603 (1950), and Wittenberg v. Brown,6 Conn. Sup. 326 (1938) — in that here, the rent did not have to be agreed upon, expressly or implicitly, each month. Rather paragraph 20 of the lease¹ fixed the rent for every month during which the defendant held over. In the context of these facts, the plaintiff's demand for increased rent was, at best, an offer which the defendant was free to reject, and did. This, however, left the rent which had been fixed pursuant to paragraph 20, as well as the month-to-month tenancy itself, extant.

Moreover, if the "lapse of time" ground in the notice to quit were invalid as the defendant claims, the first ground stated in the notice to quit would be valid: "You originally had the right or privilege to occupy such premises but such right or privilege has terminated."

The motion to reargue is denied.

BY THE COURT

Bruce L. LevinJudge of the Superior Court

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

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO REARGUE In addition to the reasons given in my February 18, 1997 memorandum of decision, the instant case is distinguishable fromDiCostanzo v. Tripoli, 137 Conn. 513, 515 (1951), on which the defendant relies, and from the cases cited in DiCostanzo —Welk v. Bidwell, 136 Conn. 603 (1950), and Wittenberg v. Brown,6 Conn. Sup. 326 (1938) — in that here, the rent did not have to be agreed upon, expressly or implicitly, each month. Rather paragraph 20 of the lease¹ fixed the rent for every month during which the defendant held over. In the context of these facts, the plaintiff's demand for increased rent was, at best, an offer which the defendant was free to reject, and did. This, however, left the rent which had been fixed pursuant to paragraph 20, as well as the month-to-month tenancy itself, extant.

Moreover, if the "lapse of time" ground in the notice to quit were invalid as the defendant claims, the first ground stated in the notice to quit would be valid: "You originally had the right or privilege to occupy such premises but such right or privilege has terminated."

The motion to reargue is denied.

BY THE COURT

Bruce L. LevinJudge of the Superior Court

Sand Dollar Develop. Group v. Michael, No. Spnh 9610-48736 (Mar. 10, 1997), 1997 Conn. Super. Ct. 704 (Colo. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

1997 Conn. Super. Ct. 704 (Sand Dollar Develop. Group v. Michael, No. Spnh 9610-48736 (Mar. 10, 1997)) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related