DocketNumber: No. SPNH 9711-52871
Citation Numbers: 1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 4332
Judges: LEVIN, JUDGE.
Filed Date: 4/23/1998
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/17/2021
The defendants have filed a second motion to dismiss alleging that the October 21, 1997 notice to quit has become equivocal by virtue of the certain language in a letter, dated April 1, 1998, sent to the named defendant by the plaintiff's property manager. The text of the letter follows with the material language italicized.
Dear ANITA WILSON:
The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) requires that we periodically review your income and family composition to determine if you are still eligible to receive housing assistance.
To complete our review of your income and family composition, you must meet with the person above at the place indicated above and supply the required information. S/he will be available for recertification interviews during the times indicated above.
Please contact this person as soon as possible and set up an appointment.
To help us on processing your recertification, please bring the information listed on the attached sheet with you to the interview.
If you do not submit your recertification information by the Submission Date above, your lease gives us the right to raise your rent. CT Page 4334
Sincerely
s/ ASSISTANT PROPERTY MANAGER
(Emphasis added.)
Where, as here, there has been a lease between the parties, a summary process action cannot be brought until and unless that lease has been terminated. "Although many unequivocal acts may be sufficient to terminate all rights arising under a lease, the only foundation for a summary process action is a notice to quit." Bridgeport v. Barbour-Daniel Electronics, Inc.,
The last of these three functions could not logically be affected by the April 1, 1998 letter. Moreover, given the temporal distance between the October 21, 1997 notice to quit and the April 1, 1998 letter, the contentious and protracted litigation that has ensued,1 and the indeterminate language in the April 1, 1998 letter itself, a reasonable person could not doubt that the rental agreement has been — and remains — terminated, nor doubt that the lessor does not acquiesce in any holding over by the defendants. For this reason, the motion to dismiss is denied.
BY THE COURT
____________________________ CT Page 4335 Bruce L. Levin Judge of the Superior Court