Presidential Vill., LLC v. Perkins, SC 20043

• Court: Supreme Court of Connecticut
• Writing for the Court: McDONALD, J.
• Citation: 209 A.3d 616,332 Conn. 45
• Parties: PRESIDENTIAL VILLAGE, LLC v. Tonya PERKINS, et al.
• Decision Date: 18 June 2019
• Docket Number: SC 20043

332 Conn. 45
209 A.3d 616

PRESIDENTIAL VILLAGE, LLC
v.
Tonya PERKINS, et al.

SC 20043

Supreme Court of Connecticut.

Argued October 9, 2018
Officially released June 18, 2019

209 A.3d 617

Amy Eppler-Epstein, with whom was Shelley White, for the appellant (named defendant).

David E. Schancupp, with whom was Hugh D. Hughes, New Haven, for the appellee (plaintiff).

J.L. Pottenger, Jr., filed a brief for the Jerome N. Frank Legal Services Organization et al. as amici curiae.

Robinson, C.J., and Palmer, McDonald, D'Auria, Mullins and Kahn, Js.

McDONALD, J.

332 Conn. 47

This summary process action concerns the degree of specificity required in the

209 A.3d 618

pretermination notice¹ that, pursuant to regulations promulgated

332 Conn. 48

by the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), must be provided to a tenant who resides in federally subsidized housing before the landlord may commence an eviction proceeding against that tenant. Specifically, the issue presented is whether a pretermination notice asserting nonpayment of rent as the ground for the proposed termination of the tenancy is jurisdictionally defective if it includes either rent charges that cannot serve as a basis for termination of the tenancy under state summary process law or undesignated charges for obligations other than rent. The trial court concluded that the inclusion of both types of charges renders the notice jurisdictionally defective. The Appellate Court concluded that state law is irrelevant to the legal sufficiency of such a notice, and that the inclusion of charges other than for rent is not a material defect under federal law. Presidential Village, LLC v. Perkins , 176 Conn. App. 493, 500, 506, 170 A.3d 701 (2017).

The defendant tenant, Tonya Perkins,² appeals, upon our grant of certification, from the Appellate Court's judgment reversing the judgment of the trial court dismissing the summary process action initiated by the plaintiff landlord, Presidential Village, LLC. We conclude that the inclusion of undesignated charges for obligations other than rent rendered the notice jurisdictionally defective. Accordingly, we reverse the Appellate Court's judgment.

The record reveals the following undisputed facts and procedural history. The plaintiff is a private company that owns and manages Presidential Village, a housing development in New Haven in which the rental units are subsidized by HUD through a project based

332 Conn. 49

Section 8³ program intended to benefit low income families. Tenants are responsible for a portion of the rent, based on a percentage of their income and other factors; HUD makes monthly payments to the plaintiff to make up the difference between the tenant's portion of the rent and the full market rent. If a tenant fails to provide information relevant to the determination of the tenant's share of the rent, which may be periodically adjusted as circumstances change, the tenant may be required to pay the market rent.⁴ See generally United States Dept. of

209 A.3d 619

Housing & Urban Development, HUD Handbook 4350.3 Rev-1: Occupancy Requirements of Subsidized Multifamily Housing Programs (November, 2013) (HUD Handbook).

In March, 2010, the defendant signed a HUD model lease for an apartment in Presidential Village for a term beginning March 2, 2010, and ending February 28, 2011, and thereafter "continu [ing ]" for successive terms of one month ...." (Emphasis added.) The lease set the defendant's rent at $ 377 per month; it did not indicate the amount of HUD's subsidy or the market rate for the unit. The lease provides that the defendant's rent

332 Conn. 50

may increase (or decrease) for various reasons, including a change in her income.⁵

In February, 2015, the plaintiff commenced the present summary process action against the defendant, seeking immediate possession of the premises, solely on the ground of nonpayment of rent. The complaint alleged that the defendant's monthly rent was $ 1402, the defendant's portion of that rent was $ 1402,⁶ and, on January 1, 2015, the defendant failed to pay the rent then due and payable.

The complaint further alleged the procedures under-taken by the plaintiff prior to initiating the action. Specifically, it alleged that, on January 14, 2015, with the January rent still unpaid, the plaintiff sent a pretermination notice to the defendant, in accordance with HUD regulations, regarding her past due rent. It further alleged that, on January 29, 2015, with the rent still unpaid, the plaintiff served a notice to quit on the defendant. Both notices were attached as exhibits to the complaint. Relevant to the present case, the pretermination notice stated as follows:

332 Conn. 51

 "RE: PAST DUE RENT
                 Inv. No Inv. Date Due Date Inv. Amount Balance
                 08/27/2013 08/27/2013 $1,797.56 $1,797.56
                 10 09/01/2013 09/11/2013 $93.00 $93.00
                 CHFA201321 10/01/2013 10/11/2013 $93.00 $93.00
                 2014-1232 11/01/2014 11/11/2014 $1,402.00 $1,402.00
                 2014-1340 12/01/2014 12/11/2014 $1,402.00 $1,402.00
                 2014-1455 01/01/2015 01/11/2015 $1,402.00 $1,402.00
                 Total Rental Obligation: $6.159.56"
                

"You have violated the terms of your lease in that you failed to pay your rent, in

209 A.3d 620

the total rental obligation of $ 6,189.56 . Your failure to pay such rent constitutes a material noncompliance with the terms of your lease.

"We hereby notify you that your lease agreement may be subject to termination and an immediate eviction proceeding, initiated by our office. We value our tenants and request that you immediately contact our office, regarding full payment of your rental obligations. Your rental obligations will include the delinquent rent, late fees, utilities, legal fees, and any other eviction proceeding sundry cost .

"You have the right within ten days after receipt of this notice or within ten days after the date following the date this notice was mailed whichever is earlier to discuss the proposed termination of your tenancy with your landlord's agent⁷ ....

"If you remain in the premises on the date specified for termination, we may seek to enforce the termination by bringing judicial action at which time you have a right to present a defense." (Emphasis added.)

The defendant filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's summary process complaint on the ground that the pretermination notice was defective and, therefore, that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. The alleged defects were (1) a variance in the cure amount requested in the pretermination notice ($ 6189.56) and the alleged nonpayment that is the basis of the complaint

332 Conn. 52

($ 1402), which contravenes federal laws regulating the pretermination notice, as articulated in the HUD Handbook and state case law, and (2) the notice's allegations of violations of leases that are no longer in effect, which violate Connecticut summary process law.

In its opposition to the motion, the plaintiff argued that the pretermination notice was not defective. It asserted that there was nothing defective about a pretermination notice that lists the total financial obligations owed by the defendant to the plaintiff. The plaintiff further contended that a federal pretermination notice fully complies with the law if it includes the specific information supporting the landlord's right to termination; a notice does not become defective simply because it contains more information than strictly necessary.

The trial court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss. The court determined that the notice was defective because it contained legally impermissible and factually inaccurate grounds for termination. The trial court explained that one purpose of the pretermination notice is to provide the tenant with the opportunity to cure. The present notice did not provide this opportunity because it was misleading in at least two ways. First, the notice informed the defendant that she had to pay $ 6189.56 in order to prevent eviction when, under state summary process law, payment of a far lesser amount, $ 2804 (rent for December, 2014, and January, 2015), would have prevented the only eviction that could have been initiated based on that particular notice.⁸ See

209 A.3d 621

General Statutes § 47a-23 (d). Second, the

332 Conn. 53

notice included charges as "rental obligations" that did not qualify as "rent." The trial court noted that the plaintiff had conceded that the $ 6189.56 in "rental obligations" included approximately $ 1300 in attorney's fees for which the defendant was not even liable,⁹ and that it could not account for another portion of...