Opinion
No. H-1312, HDSP-137200
June 2, 2006
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION MOTION TO DISMISS
This is a summary process action based on nuisance and violation of lease. A termination notice was delivered to the defendant on or around February 7, 2006. The notice to quit was served on March 25, 2006.
The defendant moves to dismiss the case on the grounds that the termination notice at the very outset contains a declaration that is inconsistent with the defendant's right to cure. The plaintiff contends that the termination notice is consistent with § 47a-15.
DISCUSSION
General Statute § 47a-15 provides in relevant part: "Prior to the commencement of a summary process action, except in the case in which the landlord elects to proceed under sections 47a-23 to 47a-23b, inclusive, to evict based on nonpayment of rent, on conduct by the tenant which constitutes a serious nuisance or on a violation of subsection (h) of section 47a-11, if there is a material noncompliance with section 47a-11 which materially affects the health and safety of the other tenants or materially affects the physical condition of the premises, or if there is a material noncompliance by the tenant with the rental agreement or a material noncompliance with the rules and regulations adopted in accordance with section 47a-9, and the landlord chooses to evict based on such noncompliance, the landlord shall deliver a written notice to the tenant specifying the acts or omissions constituting the breach and that the rental agreement shall terminate upon a date not less than fifteen days after receipt of the notice. If such breach can be remedied by repair by the tenant or payment of damages by the tenant to the landlord, and such breach is not so remedied within such fifteen-day period, the rental agreement shall terminate except that (1) if the breach is remediable by repairs or the payment of damages and the tenant adequately remedies the breach within such fifteen-day period, the rental agreement shall not terminate; or (2) if substantially the same act or omission for which notice was given recurs within six months, the landlord may terminate the rental agreement in accordance with the provisions of sections 47a-23 to 47a-23b, inclusive. . . ."
This pretermination or KAPA notice is intended to provide a tenant with notice of the breach and to allow the tenant an opportunity to cure the breach in order to avoid eviction. "The legislative purpose of the statute is manifest on its face. It is to discourage and foreclose evictions against `first offenders.' . . . Upon remedy of the breach by the tenant within the statutory time framework, the rental agreement remains in effect. The statutory right to this remedy is available to tenants under both written and oral leases. The condition precedent to a remedy of the breach by the tenant is the receipt of a `written notice . . . specifying the acts or omissions.'" KAPA Associates v. Flores, 35 Conn. Sup. 274, 278 (1979).
In Jefferson Garden Associates v. Greene, 202 Conn. 128, 143-145, 520 A.2d 173 (1987), the Supreme Court addressed the issue of the sufficiency of pretermination (KAPA) notices. "In order to demonstrate its compliance with the notices required for a proper termination, a landlord must show that the notices given to the tenant apprised her of the information a tenant needs to protect herself against premature, discriminatory or arbitrary eviction. . . . To further this salutary purpose, the notice requirements of 47a-15 must be construed strictly. . . . Strict construction does not, however, require ritualistic compliance with statutory or regulatory mandates. . . . As we have held in other contexts, in which regulatory and constitutional rights were also implicated; . . . not every deviation from the strict requirements of either statutes or regulations warrants dismissal of an action for summary process. When good cause for termination of a lease has clearly been shown, and when notices of termination have been sent in strict compliance with statutory timetables, a landlord should not be precluded from pursuing summary eviction proceedings because of hypertechnical dissection of the wording of the notices that he has sent. . . ." (Citations omitted.) Jefferson Garden Associates v. Greene, supra, 202 Conn. 143-145.
"[T]he specificity of the notice goes directly to the purpose of the notice. The purpose of Conn. Gen. Stat. Sec. 47a-15 is to allow the tenant an opportunity to correct alleged violations of the lease agreement. Kapa Associates v. Flores, 35 Conn. Aup. 274, 278 (1979). Similarly, Conn. Gen. Stat. Sec. 47a-23 requires notice detailed enough to provide the tenant with information to prepare a defense to a summary process action. Jefferson Garden Associates, supra, 143. Accordingly, the notice must be specific enough to allow a tenant to recognize his violations and either cure or defend against them." Barkan Management Co., Inc. v. Artis, Superior Court, judicial district of New Haven, Docket No. SPNH 951145269 (Jones, J.; February 16, 1996) ( 1996 Ct. Sup. 1420, 1423-1424.)
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
When "[t]he giving of a sufficient notice is a condition precedent to bringing action. . . . The inquiry always is: Does the notice reasonably protect the interests of the defendant under the particular circumstances of the case?" (Citations omitted.) Schapp v. Meriden, 139 Conn. 254, 256, 93 A.2d 152 (1952).
In determining whether the pretermination (KAPA) notice complies with § 47a-15, the Court must consider the notice in its entirety. Whether the notice is called a "termination notice" or "pretermination notice," it is required to provide notice of the breach, the possibility of termination and the right to cure.
In this case, the pretermination (KAPA) notice contains the following language after a description of the alleged violations: "Please note that your date of termination of the lease will be March 5, 2006, which is more than fifteen (15) days from receipt of this notice. Please be further advised that the rental agreement shall terminate on this date unless you abate the conduct to the satisfaction of your Landlord within this time period." (Emphasis added.). The plaintiff clearly provided notice of the breach, the possibility of termination and the right to cure. The plaintiff should not be faulted for providing a detailed description of the alleged violations before providing notice of the right to "abate the conduct" to avoid termination.
Under the particular circumstances of this case, the court finds that the termination notice complies with General Statutes §§ 47a-15 and 47a-23. The notice sufficiently apprised the defendant of the information needed to protect against premature, discriminatory or arbitrary eviction.
"When good cause for termination of a lease has clearly been shown, and when notices of termination have been sent in strict compliance with statutory timetables, a landlord should not be precluded from pursuing summary eviction proceedings because of hypertechnical dissection of the wording of the notices that he has sent. . . ." (Citations omitted.) Jefferson Garden Associates v. Greene, supra, 202 Conn. 145.
Accordingly, the defendant's Motion to Dismiss is denied.