Broad v. Adams, Docket No. HDSP-137382 (Conn. Super. 9/26/2006)
| Decision Date | 26 September 2006 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. HDSP-137382 |
| Court | Connecticut Superior Court |
| Parties | 280 BROAD, LLC v. CARL ADAMS, SR. |
This is a summary process action based on nonpayment of rent. The plaintiff, hereinafter ("Landlord"), seeks to evict the defendant, hereinafter ("Tenant"). The Landlord alleges that the Tenant failed to pay the rent for the months of January, 2006 through and including April, 2006. The Tenant alleges the following special defenses: (1) Rent was offered to my landlord before the Notice to Quit was received; (2) Condition of the premises; (3) Retaliatory action by the landlord; and (4) Physically disabled.1 The case was tried on May 31, 2006, July 18, 2006, August 15, 2006, and September 11, 2006. The Tenant appeared pro se.2
"The [fact-finding] function is vested in the trial court with its unique opportunity to view the evidence presented in a totality of circumstances, i.e., including its observations of the demeanor and conduct of the witnesses and parties." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Cavolick v. DeSimone, 88 Conn. App. 638, 646, 870 A.2d 1147, cert. denied, 274 Conn. 906, 876 A.2d 1198 (2005).
(Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.)" In re Antonio M., 56 Conn. App. 534, 540, 744 A.2d 915 (2000). "The sifting and weighing of evidence is peculiarly the function of the trier [of fact]." Smith v. Smith, 183 Conn. 121, 123, 438 A.2d 842 (1981). "[N]othing in our law is more elementary than that the trier [of fact] is the final judge of the credibility of witnesses and of the weight to be accorded to their testimony." (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Toffolon v. Avon, 173 Conn. 525, 530, 378 A.2d 580 (1977). "The trier is free to accept or reject, in whole or in part, the testimony offered by either party." Smith v. Smith, supra, 183 Conn. 123. "That determination of credibility is a function of the trial court." Heritage Square, LLC v. Eoanou, 61 Conn. App. 329, 333, 763 A.2d 199 (2001).
(Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Osborn, 41 Conn. App. 287, 291, 676 A.2d 399 (1996).
The trial court's function as the fact finder "is to draw whatever inferences from the evidence or facts established by the evidence it deems to be reasonable and logical." (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Christine F., 6 Conn. App. 360, 366, 505 A.2d 734, cert. denied, 199 Conn. 808, 508 A.2d 769 (1986).
Gulycz v. Stop & Shop Cos., 29 Conn. App. 519, 523, 615 A.2d 1087 (1992).
The standard of proof in summary process actions, a fair preponderance of the evidence, is "properly defined as the better evidence, the evidence having the greater weight, the more convincing force in your mind." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Cross v. Huttenlocher, 185 Conn. 390, 394, 440 A.2d 952 (1981).3
The Tenant's answer admits the following material allegations of the complaint.4 The Landlord is the managing agent for the record owner of certain premises located at 5 Elm Street, Apt. 4, Windsor, Connecticut ("Premises").
The Tenant took possession of the Premises pursuant to Said Lease and still occupies the Premises. The Tenant agreed to pay a monthly rent of $650, due and payable in advance on the first day of each month during the term of the Lease. Although the time given in the notice to quit possession of the premises has passed, the Tenant still continues in possession. The Tenant contests the other material allegations of the complaint.
The Court finds the following facts by a fair preponderance of the evidence.
The Landlord is the owner of the premises at 5 Elm St., Apt. 4, Windsor, Connecticut. Tullat Mahmood is the managing agent for the Landlord. On August 10, 2005, the Tenant moved into the premises. The agreed-upon rent was $650.
The Tenant paid rent from August 2005 through December 2005. The Tenant claims he attempted to offer the rent for January 2006. He testified that he tried to pay rent to Mahmood's cousin who has a store downstairs. The Tenant also claims that he offered the Landlord $1,300 for rent in February 2006. The Landlord disputes these claims. The Landlord testified he would have accepted rent if it was actually offered.
During his tenancy, the Tenant complained to the Landlord regarding several issues with the apartment including furnace problems, water leaks and rodent infestation. The Tenant also testified he had high heating and electric bills.
In late December 2005, the Tenant experienced problems with the furnace and/or plumbing that caused flooding. He was without heat and electricity in his apartment. During this period, town officials became involved. The furnace was eventually repaired to the town's satisfaction. The Landlord claims the Tenant was without heat for only a day.
On or about February 7, 2006, the Tenant complained about a water leak around the boiler. The Landlord had the boiler serviced. The boiler was inspected and found to be functioning properly for its age and condition.
On or about April 8, 2006, the gas furnace in the Tenant's bedroom erupted and flooded the apartment with water. The Tenant was unable to contact the Landlord. He then called the local police. The police came to the apartment and finally contacted the Landlord. At some point, town officials became involved. The furnace had to be replaced. The Landlord paid for the Tenant to stay at a local motel for a few days while the repairs were being made to the apartment. The furnace issue was eventually resolved to the town's satisfaction. The Landlord claims that once he was informed the furnace erupted, it was replaced in a few days.
The Tenant's case worker testified about his almost monthly visits to the apartment. He noted problems with the apartment and observed that the Tenant made repairs to the apartment. After the furnace erupted in April 2006, he saw the water damage in the apartment. He heard the Tenant talk about doing work for the Landlord and complain about his relationship with the Landlord. When asked, the case worker testified that he did not believe the apartment was uninhabitable, except during the furnace incident in April 2006.
The Tenant also offered evidence that the apartment had a rodent infestation. The Landlord claims that once he was informed of the issue, he addressed the infestation problem to the town's satisfaction.
On April 13, 2006, the Landlord served the Tenant with a Notice to Quit Possession based on nonpayment of rent. After the notice to quit was served, the Tenant paid $650, which was accepted as use and occupancy. The Tenant has not made any other payments since April.
During the trial, the Tenant presented evidence that he did work for the Landlord for which he was not compensated. The work included cutting down trees, cleaning the hallways and painting. He testified that he acted like a superintendent for the building. The Tenant also apparently did some work in the apartment on his own initiative. He also ran his business, selling fragrances, out of the apartment. The Landlord denies that he hired the Tenant to do work for him. The Landlord testified he felt threatened by the Tenant. The parties were not on good terms.
In a summary process action based on nonpayment of rent, the landlord must prove, by a fair preponderance of the evidence, all the elements of the case. The essential elements are: (1) On or about a certain date, the landlord and the tenant entered into an oral or written, lease/rental agreement for a weekly/monthly/yearly term for use and occupancy of a certain premises; (2) The tenant agreed to pay an agreed upon rent by a certain date; (3) The tenant took possession of the premises pursuant to the lease; (4) The tenant failed to pay the rent due under the lease by a certain date; (5) The landlord caused a proper Notice to Quit Possession to be served on the tenant to vacate the premises on or before a certain termination date; and (6) Although the time given in the Notice to Quit Possession of the premises has passed, the tenant remains in possession of the premises. See § 47a-23 (a) (1) (D).
Failure of the landlord to establish any of the necessary elements, by a fair preponderance of the evidence, results in judgment for the tenant. Gulycz v. Stop & Shop Cos., supra, 29 Conn. App. 523.
In this case, the Tenant was obligated to pay monthly rent of $650. The Tenant failed to pay the rent due for the months of January 2006 through and including April 2006. The notice to quit served on April 13, 2006, is proper and in conformity with the statute. The Tenant failed to...
To continue reading
Request your trial