Club Road Corp. v. Whitehead
Citation | 34 Conn.Supp. 580,378 A.2d 110 |
Decision Date | 07 January 1977 |
Docket Number | No. 272,272 |
Court | Superior Court of Connecticut |
Parties | CLUB ROAD CORPORATION v. Thomas S. WHITEHEAD et al. |
Richard W. Farrell, Old Greenwich, for appellants (defendants).
Daniel W. Moger, Jr., Greenwich, for appellee (plaintiff).
In this summary process action judgment was entered awarding possession of the premises to the plaintiff owner. In appealing from this judgment the defendant tenants, having made no attempt to correct the subordinate facts contained in the finding in accordance with Practice Book § 567G, have assigned as "error apparent on the face of the record" the finding of the trial court "that the month-to-month tenancy was terminated by the lack of agreement as to the December, 1975 rent and the plaintiff's refusal to accept rent after November, 1975 and service of a statutory notice to quit on December 22, 1975."
It was admitted in the pleadings that the defendants had occupied certain premises owned by the plaintiff under a written lease which expired on June 30, 1975. The trial court found that on June 16, 1975, the plaintiff wrote a letter to the defendants summarizing an agreement which had been reached between them on the telephone. The letter stated that the defendants would continue to occupy the premises on a month-to-month basis at a rental of $850 per month, but that each party would give the other ninety days notice of termination or intention to vacate. The letter also provided that the plaintiff was making this arrangement "on the assumption" that the tenants would then pay certain delinquent charges, as well as advance payments, to the yacht club affiliated with the plaintiff corporation. The trial court found that those payments were never made in full. On October 28, 1975, the plaintiff sent another letter to the defendants demanding a rent of $950 per month to allow the defendants to remain in possession until June, 1976. That demand was rejected by the defendants in a letter dated November 16, 1975. The rent for the month of November, 1975, was paid in the sum of $850 and was accepted by the plaintiff. On December 22, 1975, the plaintiff caused a statutory notice to quit possession to be served on the defendants. The trial court concluded that the tenancy was terminated by the lack of agreement as to the December, 1975 rent, the plaintiff's refusal to accept rent after November, 1975, and the service of the notice to quit.
The essential claim of the defendants is that the plaintiff failed to give them the ninety days notice of termination as agreed in the June 16, 1975 letter, when the rent was established at $850 per month. The plaintiff claims that that agreement ceased to be effective because of the failure of the defendants to comply with the condition requiring them to make certain payments to the yacht club. The trial court found that that payment provision was, in effect, a condition precedent to the agreement. McIsaac v. Hale, 104 Conn. 374, 379, 132 A. 916, 917. Since the finding of the trial court that the agreement was made on...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Matter of Curio Shoppes, Inc., Bankruptcy No. 2-85-00171.
...(1928). Acceptance of rent does not imply a waiver of a continuing breach or future breaches by the tenant, Club Road Corp. v. Whitehead, 34 Conn.Sup. 580, 584, 378 A.2d 110 (1977); it does, however, constitute a waiver of any prior breach, whether due to non-payment of rent or otherwise. S......
-
Zitomer v. Palmer, 1158
...on breach of a rental covenant, will not be construed as a waiver of the landlord's rights under a lease. Club Road Corporation v. Whitehead, 34 Conn.Sup. 580, 583, 378 A.2d 110 (1977). II As their second claim of error, the defendants contend that the trial court should have considered the......
-
O'Hara v. State
...Conn. 188, 194, 148 A.2d 554 (1959); Bernard v. Gershman, 18 Conn.App. 652, 657, 559 A.2d 1171 (1989); Club Road Corporation v. Whitehead, 34 Conn.Sup. 580, 583, 378 A.2d 110 (1977); nor were the facts, as set forth in the defendant's pleading, sufficient to warrant an inference that the de......
-
Steinegger v. Fields
...of Common Pleas. Fort Orange Barbering Co. v. New Haven Hotel Co., 92 Conn. 144, 149, 101 A. 505 (1917); Club Road Corporation v. Whitehead, 34 Conn.Sup. 580, 583, 378 A.2d 110 (1977). While waivers and estoppels are theoretically very different things, the dividing line between waivers imp......