21 West Main Street Associates, LLC v. Amand

• Decision Date: 28 January 2020
• Docket Number: HHDCV195061177S
• Court: Superior Court of Connecticut
• Parties: 21 West Main Street Associates, LLC v. Clyde E. St. Amand et al.

21 West Main Street Associates, LLC v. Clyde E. St. Amand et al.

No. HHDCV195061177S

Superior Court of Connecticut, Judicial District of Hartford, Hartford

January 28, 2020

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

Judge (with first initial, no space for Sullivan, Dorsey, and Walsh): Budzik, Matthew J., J.

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

Budzik, J.

Before the court is plaintiff 21 West Main Street Associates, LLC’s (21 West Main) application for prejudgment remedy against Clyde E. St. Amand, Shari L. St. Amand, Clyde St. Amand’s Hair Designs, LLC, and Designs By Clyde St. Amand, LLC (collectively, the defendants). The dispute stems from a lease agreement under which the defendants agreed to lease the second floor of a house along Route 44 in Avon that was owned by the plaintiff and which was converted to commercial use. 21 West Main alleges that the defendants broke the lease a year early and therefore owe lease payments for that year. 21 West Main also seeks recovery of monies related to the repair of the premises after the defendants vacated.

The court heard evidence on this matter on November 4th and 5th of 2019. The court heard testimony from each of the parties and took into evidence the relevant lease agreements, other documents, and voluminous pictures depicting the premises at various time periods. As more fully set forth below, based on the evidence presented at the hearing, the court hereby finds probable cause to sustain 21 West Main’s application for prejudgment remedy against the defendants in the amount of $25, 400, taking into account any potential defenses counterclaims, or set offs available to the defendants.

The court finds the following facts. The parties entered into a written lease agreement for the second-floor premises at 21 West Main Street in Avon for the time period of April 1, 2014 through March 31, 2017. The lease included a provision giving the defendants the option to renew the lease on the same terms for an additional three years (to March of 2020) at the end of the original three-year lease period. In order to move into the premises, Mr. St. Armand did significant work to the leased space to make it suitable in Mr. St. Armand’s eyes for a hair salon projecting a certain high-end and spa-like feel. Mr. St. Armand did significant painting and interior design work, and added sinks, lighting fixtures, and wall plates that fit his desired style. 21 West Main’s principal, Richard Portfolio, was aware of and approved of Mr. St. Armand’s changes to the leased premises.

In March of 2017, the parties renewed their lease for an additional three years. The court reaches this conclusion because a signed copy of the lease renewal, signed by all parties, was entered into evidence. It is also undisputed that the defendants occupied the premises from April of 2017 to March of 2018 and from April of 2018 to March of 2019. The defendants abandoned the premises by March 31, 2019. 21 West Main has retained the $4, 600 security deposit paid by the defendants under the lease.

The crux of the dispute between the parties is whether the parties agreed to the amount of the lease payment for all three years, and whether any disagreement as to the exact amount of the lease payment renders the lease unenforceable in its last year (April of 2019 to March of 2020). The parties do not dispute that the lease amount for April of 2017 to March of 2018 was established by the lease agreement at $2, 500 per month and that the defendants paid that amount. The courts also finds the lease amount for April of 2018 to March of 2019 was $2, 500 per month and that the defendants paid that amount. Although the handwritten edits to the lease renewal say that the lease amount for April of 2018 to March of 2019 "will be discussed" or is "TBD," Mr. St. Armand testified that he paid $2 500 for the April of 2018 to March of 2019 time period. Thus, the only issue left for the court to determine is whether, under the facts of this case, there is sufficient evidence to enforce the lease for the time period of April of 2019 to March of 2020.

"The statute of frauds requires that the essential terms and not every term of a contract be set forth therein. The essential provisions of a contract are the purchase price, the parties, and the subject matter for sale." (Internal citations omitted.) SS-II, LLC v....