DocketNumber: No. SPBR 9505-29502
Citation Numbers: 1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 7066
Judges: TIERNEY, JUDGE.
Filed Date: 6/30/1995
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
FACTS
The parties entered into a written lease for the premises at 70 Reef Road, Fairfield, Connecticut. The lease term ran from April 15, 1988 to April 1, 1993. Upon the expiration of the written lease, the complaint alleges that the lease continued on a month-to-month basis. On April 17, 1995, the plaintiff issued and served on the defendant, Timothy's Ice Cream, Inc., a notice to quit requiring the defendant to vacate the commercial premises on or before April 30, 1995. The notice to quit stated three reasons: (1) termination of lease, (2) lapse of time, and (3) no right to occupy premises. The defendant CT Page 7067 failed to vacate the premises and on May 1, 1995, the plaintiff instituted this summary process action. In one count the plaintiff alleged all three reasons for eviction.
The defendant filed a Request to Revise pursuant to Practice Book § 147(3) requesting that the plaintiff revise her complaint dated May 1, 1995, to set forth three grounds, each of which is supported by one separate reason contained in the notice to quit. The plaintiff filed an objection to the Request to Revise in proper form. The parties appeared and furnished oral argument.
DISCUSSION OF LAW
A Request to Revise is the proper method of seeking a "separation of causes of action which may be united in one complaint when they are improperly combined in one count." Practice Book § 147(3). Connecticut practice permits the pleading of alternative relief and alternative causes of action. Practice Book § 137. A notice to quit may give more than one reason. Harrison v. Milling, H-537, April 6, 1984 (Aronson, J.). Moisiadis v. Failla, H-941, March 1, 1991,
Connecticut practice permits the joinder of causes of action.Practice Book § 133. "A cause of action is that single group of facts which is claimed to have brought about an unlawful injury to the plaintiff and which entitles the plaintiff to relief. . . .`A right of action at law arises from the existence of a primary right in the plaintiff, and an invasion of that right by some delict on the part of the defendant.'" (Citation omitted.) Gurliacci v. Mayer,
Summary process is a creature of statute requiring that its language be narrowly construed and strictly followed. Jo-Mark Sand Gravel Co. v. Pantanella,
One of the purposes for seeking a request to revise is to set up the complaint in order to file a motion to strike testing the legal sufficiency of the allegations of the complaint. Practice Book § 152.
It is improper to file a motion to strike relating to a paragraph of a pleading. Only an entire count of a complaint or an entire special defense can be subject to a motion to strike. Practice Book § 152(1) andGordon v. Bridgeport Housing Authority,
The defendant in this particular case anticipates filing a motion to dismiss and/or a motion to strike regarding two of the three reasons set forth in the notice to quit. The plaintiff, therefore, must comply with the request to revise so that a proper motion can clearly be directed as to "allegations of any complaint." ConnecticutPractice Book §§ 143 and 152. CONCLUSION
The first reason set forth in the notice to quit is "termination of lease." In order to commence a summary process action, a valid notice to quit is a condition precedent. Lampasona v. Jacobs,
The second reason set forth in the notice to quit is "lapse of time." As a condition precedent to a lapse of time eviction there must be a contract of lease and the lease has expired. Welk v. Bidwell,
The third reason set forth in the notice to quit is "no right to occupy premises." The notice to quit statute was modified by P.A. 89-254 and divided the former reason, "one who has no right or privilege" to occupy the premises, into two separate reasons: "when such premises, or any part thereof, is occupied by one who never had a right or privilege to occupy such premises", Connecticut GeneralStatutes §
Therefore, the court determines that different facts and claims of law are required to support each of the three separate reasons for the notice to quit.
The Request to Revise is hereby granted. The plaintiff is ordered to separate her complaint into three separate counts, one for each of the three reasons set forth in the notice to quit.
BY THE COURT
KEVIN TIERNEY, JUDGE
Ivey, Barnum & O'Mara v. Indian Harbor Properties, Inc. , 190 Conn. 528 ( 1983 )
Jo-Mark Sand & Gravel Co. v. Pantanella , 139 Conn. 598 ( 1953 )
Feneck v. Nowakowski , 146 Conn. 434 ( 1959 )
Welk v. Bidwell , 136 Conn. 603 ( 1950 )
Rosa v. Cristina , 135 Conn. 364 ( 1949 )
Vogel v. Bacus , 133 Conn. 95 ( 1946 )