Warner Associates v. Logan, 17215

• Citation: 718 A.2d 48,50 Conn.App. 90
• Decision Date: 25 August 1998
• Docket Number: No. 17215,17215
• Court: Appellate Court of Connecticut
• Parties: WARNER ASSOCIATES v. Marilyn LOGAN et al.

Page 48

718 A.2d 48

50 Conn.App. 90

WARNER ASSOCIATES v. Marilyn LOGAN et al.

No. 17215.

Appellate Court of Connecticut.

Argued May 5, 1998.

Decided Aug. 25, 1998.

David J. Ordway, Stamford, for appellant (plaintiff).

Lawrence P. Weisman, Westport, with whom, on the brief, was Debra B. Marino, for appellees (defendants).

Before LAVERY, SCHALLER and SPEAR, JJ.

LAVERY, Judge.

The plaintiff, Warner Associates, appeals from the judgment in favor of the defendants Marilyn Logan and John Logan after trial before the court. The dispositive issue in this appeal is whether the trial court properly found that the parties did not enter into an additional five year lease term. ¹ We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The trial court found the following facts. The defendants entered into a written commercial lease with the predecessor in title to the plaintiff covering a detached garage on the premises at 34 Franklin Street in Westport. The defendants used the garage to operate a commercial kitchen and catering business.

The term of the five year lease ran from May 1, 1988, through April 30, 1993. Paragraph twenty of the lease states: "In the event that the Tenant shall remain in the demised premises after the expiration of the term of this lease without having executed a new written lease with the Landlord, such holding over shall not constitute a renewal or extension of this lease. The Landlord may, at its option, elect to treat the Tenant as one who has not removed at the end of his term, and thereupon be entitled to all the remedies against the Tenant provided by law in that situation, or the Landlord may elect, at its option, to construe such holding over as a tenancy from month to month, subject to all the terms and conditions of this lease, except as to duration thereof, and in that event the Tenant shall pay monthly rent in advance at the rate provided herein as effective during the last month of the demised term."

Paragraph twenty-nine of the lease states: "The Landlord hereby grants to the Tenant the right to renew this lease for an additional five year period beginning May 1, 1993 and ending April 30, 1998, under the same terms and conditions set forth herein except that there will be a negotiated adjustment in the rent to be in effect during the additional five year option period. The rent adjustment shall not exceed 10 percent of the rent in effect during the last year of this lease."

In September, 1992, the property was purchased by the plaintiff, which assumed the existing written lease with the defendants. Harry Monies was a general partner of the plaintiff. Monies attempted to increase the rent and to require a security deposit, neither of which was provided for in the lease or agreed to by the defendants.

Around March 20, 1993, the defendants attempted to exercise the option to extend the lease by certified mail. The defendants voluntarily paid the increased rent as provided in paragraph twenty-nine of the lease. On March 26, 1993, the plaintiff insisted on the security deposit, refused to accept the extension, and forwarded to the defendants a proposed five year lease, the terms of which they did not accept.

In May, 1994, there was an interruption in the electrical service to the garage, which the defendants claimed arose from the installation of a fence by the plaintiff in 1992. The defendants hired an electrician to provide a temporary hookup for electrical service. On May 6, 1994, the defendants sent a letter by certified mail to the plaintiff referring to the electrical problem and the need for repair. On May 9, 1994, the plaintiff sent to the defendants a notice of eviction stating that they were to vacate within thirty days because they failed (1) to sign the proposed lease, thereby making them month-to-month tenants, (2) to comply with the request for two months security, (3) to clean up the mess surrounding the building, (4) to remove a sign, and (5) to remove plants and tables from in front of the garage and to reduce the number of garbage cans from six to two. On May 10, 1994, the defendants responded by letter, denying any wrongdoing. On May 20, 1994, the plaintiff responded to the May 10 letter indicating that the notice of eviction was withdrawn, and declaring that the defendants were not month-to-month tenants.

On August 18, 1994, representatives of the Westport building department instructed the power company that the temporary electrical hookup was improperly attached. The defendants agreed to remove it. On August 31, 1994, a representative of the plaintiff sent a letter to the defendants asserting that the defendants had an obligation to pay rent through April, 1998. The defendants vacated the premises in September, 1994.

At trial, two actions between the parties were consolidated. The trial court ruled in favor of the defendants in the plaintiff's action for breach of a lease contract, conversion, fraudulent misrepresentation and a violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, General Statutes § 42-110a et seq. The court ruled in favor of Warner Associates, which was the defendant in the second action. ² The plaintiff appeals challenging only the judgment against it in the first action.

The plaintiff claims that the trial court improperly concluded that the parties had not entered into a valid five year extension of the lease. Specifically, the plaintiff argues that under the terms of the lease, a new written agreement was not required for the defendants to exercise their right to renew the lease for an additional five year term. Further, the plaintiff argues that because all of the terms of the lease were identified except the amount of rent, which was acceded to by the defendants, there was a lease by implication.

The trial court interpreted paragraphs twenty and twenty-nine as follows: "Paragraph twenty provides that if the tenant remains after the expiration of the term of this lease without having executed a new written lease, such holdover shall not constitute a renewal or extension of the lease."

The trial court determined that the defendants attempted to renew the lease for the additional five year term, but that their efforts were unsuccessful. After the defendants expressed their desire to renew the lease, the plaintiff sent the defendants a new proposed lease that required two months security deposit. The original lease did not require a security deposit. In addition, the plaintiff sent the defendants a notice of eviction. The trial court stated that "[t]he result of the landlord's action in sending the notice of eviction was the rejection of the tenants' effort to renew...