Crandle v. Mather Street Ventures, LLC
| Decision Date | 21 December 2015 |
| Docket Number | HCH694 |
| Court | Connecticut Superior Court |
| Parties | Kendra Crandle v. Mather Street Ventures, LLC |
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
On April 28, 2015, the plaintiff, Kendra Crandle (Crandle) filed this housing code enforcement action against the defendant Mather Street Ventures, LLC (Mather Street) as permitted by General Statutes § 47a-14h, [1] claiming that the landlord had failed to perform the legal duties imposed by General Statutes § 47a-7.[2] Among other things Crandle alleged that she had entered into a written lease pursuant to which she was a tenant of the 3rd Floor East apartment at 96 Mather Street (the dwelling unit); that Mather Street was the landlord and a party to the lease; that Mather Street had not maintained the dwelling unit as required by law; that she had complained about the conditions in the dwelling unit to the City of Hartford (the city) at least twenty-one days before filing the action against Mather Street; and that Mather Street violated its duties as the dwelling unit was affected by " bathroom leaks, inside cabinet leaks, bedroom leaks, rear, back leaks [and] infestation of mice." Complaint, P7. Crandle now requests disbursement of monies she has paid to the clerk of the court as rent pursuant to § 47a-14h(h).[3] In response, Mather Street claims that the violations have been corrected, and requests disbursement of the full amount of the rent Crandle paid into court, as contemplated by General Statutes § 47a-14h(i).[4]
The matter was tried to the court on September 28, 2015. Crandle was self-represented; Mather Street was represented by counsel. The parties agreed that the court could take judicial notice of the contents of the Housing Session files reflecting litigation between the parties.[5] Crandle testified on her own behalf. Mather Street provided testimony from Mark McCalop, a member of Mather Street Ventures, LLC and submitted a number of documents in evidence.[6] Cross examination was available to both parties.
The court has reviewed the pleadings and considered the evidence in its entirety using the applicable principles of law.[7] Accordingly, the court finds the facts set forth throughout this decision to have been proved by a fair preponderance of the evidence.[8]
For quite some time, Crandle has resided at the building where her dwelling unit is located; when Mather Street acquired ownership of the building, she had already lived there for at least five years. Crandle desires to remain in residence at her current dwelling unit even though she had endured rodent infestation and water leakage through the ceiling there for approximately three years prior to trial.[9]
In July 2014, Mather Street brought a summary process action against Crandle based on nonpayment of rent; she became subject to an order of eviction which issued against her in August 2014. On some date prior to February 25 2015, despite the eviction order, Mather Street acceded to Crandle's request that she and her fifteen-year-old child be permitted to continue in residence at the six-room unit dwelling unit in exchange for payment of $725.00 per month as rent.[10] (Tes. Crandle.)
In January 2015, Crandle noted rodent infestation and minimal water leakage. As the winter of 2015 progressed, however, the ceiling water leakage increased and the conditions in the dwelling unit became much worse. (Tes. Crandle.)
On or about February 25, 2015, Crandle complained to the city that Mather Street had violated its obligations to her because she was subject to " leaks in the bedroom and bathroom" of her unit. The city inspected the premises on February 27, 2015. The city sent Mather Street a Notice of Violation on March 2, 2015 by certified mail, which was not claimed. Mather Street did claim, however, the Notice of Violation the city sent by certified mail on April 23, 2015. (Ex F.)
Crandle observed a significant amount of rodent infestation at the dwelling unit in April 2015. (Tes. Crandle.) Thereafter, on April 28, 2015, Crandle filed the present code enforcement action and made the first of serial payments into court.[11]
Mather Street did not take immediate steps to address the issues raised in Crandle's complaint. However, in July 2015, Mather Street notified its tenants that it was commencing remediation of the roof and repairs related to roof defects. On July 30, 2015, construction workers' completed a partial replacement of the roof at 96 Mather Street, replacing the rear to the center of a flat rubber roof.[12]
On July 20, 2015, at Mather Street's request, a licensed exterminator service (Bug-B-Gone) performed services at the interior of the dwelling unit occupied by Crandle. Chemicals were applied to the kitchen, bathroom, dining room, stove and wall void areas as a " treatment for roaches & mice." (Ex. B.) The vendor indicated to Mather Street that its services had a " guarantee period" of three months. (Ex. B.)
On August 17, 2015, the city attempted to inspect the status of the leaks about which Crandle had complained. Crandle effectively impeded completion of the city's inspection because a larger piece of furniture had been placed in a position that prevented access to an area of the ceiling for which examination of the dwelling unit was planned. The inspection concerning the status of leaks could not be performed as scheduled, even though Crandle had made no complaints about water leaking into her dwelling unit after the roof was repaired.
On August 20, 2015, Mather Street was able to access other areas of the dwelling unit. On the morning of that day, licensed representatives of another exterminator service (PestRx) cleaned and sanitized severe grease debris present in the kitchen of the dwelling unit, applied chemicals and installed bait and rodent stations to target mice, rats and insects.[13] Although no insect or rodent activity had been noted during PestRx's inspection at 11:03am on August 20, 2015, the exterminator did note " Mice/Rat-Evidence" and activity at the kitchen rodent bait station at 11:04 a.m. on that day.
At approximately 3:30 on the afternoon of August 26, 2015, the city reinspected the dwelling unit in the presence of Crandle and a Mather Street representative. On that date, although no specific violations were noted, the city instructed " both owner and occupant . . . with what to do to become code compliant." (Ex. F.) On September 1, 2015, the city found the premises to be in compliance with its housing code and closed its investigation of Crandle's complaints.
As of December 10, 2015, Crandle has paid an aggregate amount of $6, 525.00 into court.[14]
In deciding the parties' contest, the court has considered the applicable legal principles, the equities involved including whether any undue hardship would result to either party, and the facts as proved by a fair preponderance of the evidence.
Although Crandle effectively conceded that the conditions complained of had been corrected as of the time of trial, she claims she should receive the full amount of rent paid into court because it took Mather Street from February 2015 through the end of August 2015 to complete the work necessary to bring the dwelling unit into code compliance. Mather Street argues that it should receive the full amount of rent paid into court because Crandle has had full use of the premises, all complaints have been addressed, and because she took actions that delayed necessary access to the premises, and thus delayed city inspection.
After considering the evidence as a whole, the court concludes that while Mather Street made a number of improvements to the property in general, it delayed, despite due notice, in taking the proper steps to correct the code violations that directly affected the dwelling unit occupied by Crandle. Because Mather Street did not retrieve the Notice of Violation sent by the city on March 2, 2015, the city had to send a second Notice of Violation to even begin to attract the landlord's attention to the conditions requiring repair.
During the winter of 2015, Crandle's use of the premises was impaired by the leaking conditions as found in Part I. These leaking conditions adversely affected Crandle's healthy use of premises and rendered the premises at least partially unfit as Mather Street failed to maintain the portion of the roof, a common facility Mather Street was required to supply for occupants of the premises, " in good and safe working order and condition" as contemplated by § 47a-7(a)(4). The court acknowledges the commonly understood difficulties Mather Street would likely have encountered if efforts had been made to replace the roof during the harsh Connecticut winter and early spring of 2015. However, the evidence establishes that Mather Street delayed until July 2015 remediation of the leaks Crandle brought to the city's attention in the winter of 2015 and described in her code enforcement complaint.[15] Although the leaking stopped after the partial roof replacement was completed on July 30, 2015, on August 17, 2015, Crandle created conditions that impeded the city's access to the dwelling unit to inspect such progress as Mather Street had made in addressing this aspect of the alleged code violations. Crandle's conduct in placing a dresser in a location that impeded the city inspector's examination of the dwelling caused delay in completing that task.[16] Given the totality...
To continue reading
Request your trial