Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Presidential Village, LLC v. Perkins

Court of Appeals of Connecticut

September 19, 2017

PRESIDENTIAL VILLAGE, LLC
v.
TONYA PERKINS

          Argued February 14, 2017

          Hugh D. Hughes, with whom was Barbara M. Schel-lenberg, for the appellant (plaintiff).

          Amy Eppler-Epstein, for the appellee (defendant).

          DiPentima, C. J., and Keller and Prescott, Js.

         Syllabus

         The plaintiff landlord sought, by way of summary process, to regain possession of certain federally subsidized premises that it had leased to the defendant. The plaintiff had provided the defendant with a federal pretermination notice based on the defendant's nonpayment of her total rental obligation, which constituted material noncompliance with the terms of her lease. The notice included a chart detailing a month-to-month break down of the amount of rent that the defendant owed to the plaintiff. After the defendant failed to tender any payment to the plaintiff within the time period specified in the pretermination notice, the plaintiff served the defendant with a notice to quit possession of the premises and, thereafter, brought this summary process action, seeking immediate possession thereof. In response, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss the action on the ground that the plaintiff's pretermination notice was defective, and, therefore, the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the action. The trial court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss and rendered judgment in favor of the defendant, from which the plaintiff appealed to this court. Held that the trial court improperly dismissed the summary process action on the ground that the plaintiff's federal pretermination notice was defective and, therefore, that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the action: the pretermination notice sufficiently complied with the applicable federal regulations and requirements (24 C.F.R. §§ 247.3 and 247.4) governing the termination of a federally subsidized tenancy based on nonpayment of rent, as the pretermination notice provided adequate notice that the defendant's tenancy was being terminated on the ground of material noncompliance with the lease based on her nonpayment of rent, and it set forth that ground with enough specificity to enable the defendant to prepare a defense to the summary process action; moreover, this court disagreed with the trial court's findings that the purpose of the pretermination notice was to provide the defendant with an opportunity to cure her noncompliance with the lease and that the notice did not comply with the applicable specificity requirements of the federal regulations because it included nonrent charges, as the regulations contained no language pertaining to an opportunity to cure and the inclusion of certain additional nonrent charges did not render the pretermination notice fatally defective.

          OPINION

          DIPENTIMA, C. J.

         The plaintiff, Presidential Village, LLC, appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing its summary process action against the defendant, Tonya Perkins, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.[1] On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly granted the defendant's motion to dismiss because the court determined that the federal pretermination notice[2] was defective, and the defective notice deprived the court of subject matter jurisdiction to hear the case. Because its decision mistakenly rests primarily on its determination that the federal termination notice was defective under the requirements of General Statutes § 47a-23, we reverse the judgment of the trial court.

         The record reveals the following relevant facts and procedural history. On March 2, 2010, the defendant leased an apartment from the plaintiff. The dwelling unit is located in New Haven and was subsidized by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (department). According to the department's model lease agreement entered into by the parties, the defendant's lease term began on March 2, 2010, ended on February 28, 2011, and continued thereafter from month-to-month. At the time the defendant signed the lease, she agreed to pay a rent of $377 on the first day of each month, which was subject to change during the lease term in accordance with the amount the department made available monthly on behalf of the defendant.

         On January 14, 2015, the plaintiff sent a federal pretermination notice[3] to the defendant based on her nonpayment of rent in January, 2015, at which time the defendant's monthly rent was $1402.[4] The notice addressed to the defendant stated:

         ‘‘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, 189.56''

         Immediately following this table are four paragraphs of text:

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


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.