Opinion
Docket No. HDSP-134291
March 6, 2006
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
This is a summary process action based on nonpayment of rent. The relevant procedural history is as follows. The Notice to Quit Possession was served on July 15, 2005. The complaint was filed on August 29, 2005. On November 8, 2005, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss. The plaintiff's objection was filed on December 15, 2005. The matter was heard on December 20, 2005.
The Defendant argues that the case should be dismissed because the plaintiff failed to serve the Defendant with a proper notice to quit. The Plaintiff contends that it provided the appropriate termination notice under the regulations and under the lease.
The court must determine whether the notice to quit is proper. A number of provisions must be considered. The Notice to Quit Possession provides that:
"You have ten (10) calendar days within which to respond to the agent for the owner, East Hartford Housing Authority, 546 Burnside Avenue, East Hartford, Connecticut 06108, (860)290-8301." (Emphasis added.)
The termination provision of the lease, Paragraph 23f, states in relevant part:
"If the Landlord proposes to terminate this Agreement, the Landlord agrees to give the Tenant written notice and the grounds for the proposed termination. If the Landlord is terminating this agreement for "other good cause," the termination notice must be mailed to the Tenant and delivered to the dwelling unit in the manner required by law at least 30 days before the date the Tenant will be required to move from the unit and in accordance with State law requirements. Notices of proposed termination for other reasons must be given in accordance with any time frames set forth in State and local law. Any HUD-approved notice period may run concurrently with any notice period required by State or local law. All termination notices must:
• specify the date this Agreement will be terminated;
• state the grounds for termination with enough detail for the Tenant to prepare a defense; and
• advise the Tenant that he/she has a specified number of days within which to request an informal hearing with the Landlord." (Emphasis added.)
The applicable federal requirements under 24 C.F.R. 880.607(c)(1) are as follows:
"(c) Termination Notice.
(1) The owner must give the family a written notice of any proposed termination of tenancy, stating the grounds and that the tenancy is terminated on a specified date and advising the family that it has an opportunity to respond to the owner." (Emphasis added.)
General Statute Sec. 47a-23(e) states that:
"A termination notice required pursuant to federal law and regulations may be included in or combined with the notice required pursuant to this section and such inclusion or combination does not thereby render the notice required pursuant to this section equivocal, provided the rental agreement or lease shall not terminate until after the date specified in the notice for the lessee or occupant to quit possession or occupancy or the date of completion of the pretermination process, whichever is later." (Emphasis added.)
The Defendant argues that the notice to quit must comply with the termination provision of the lease. In this context, it should be borne in mind that:
"A lease is a contract. In its construction, three elementary principles must be kept constantly in mind: (1) the intention of the parties is controlling and must be gathered from the language of the lease in the light of the circumstances surrounding the parties at the execution of the instrument; (2) the language must be given its ordinary meaning unless a technical or special meaning is clearly intended; (3) the lease must be construed as a whole and in such a manner as to give effect to every provision, if reasonably possible." (Citation omitted.) Hatcho Corporation v. Della Pietra, 195 Conn. 18, 20 (1985).
The notice to quit must comply with the pretermination process required under the lease as well as the federal regulations. A pretermination notice is required in order to provide the tenant with an opportunity to cure the violation of the lease, and thus possibly avoid the necessity for a summary process action.
In a similar case, the trial court dismissed the eviction case because the landlord failed to provide the tenant with the pretermination notice required under the parties' lease. Wyndwood Associates v. Sarah Steele, Superior Court, judicial district of Hartford-New Britain at Hartford, Docket No. SPH-8401-21933 (Aronson, J.; June 6, 1984). The Court reasoned that: "we have no right to read out of the contract a provision inserted by the landlord who is presumed to know the statute and choose to include it in the contract. The plaintiff, by contract, obligated itself to give the defendant a ten-day written notice of a proposed eviction before commencing this summary process action. Lacking compliance with this condition precedent, the plaintiff cannot maintain this summary process action." (Citations omitted.) Wyndwood Associates, supra.
In Jefferson Garden Associates v. Greene, 202 Conn. 128, 143 (1987), the Supreme Court stated that "before a landlord may pursue its statutory remedy of summary process . . ., the landlord must prove its compliance with all the applicable preconditions set by state and federal law for the termination of a lease." Because of its nature, the summary process statute has been narrowly construed and strictly followed. Southland Corporation v. Vernon, 1 Conn. App. 439, 452-453 (1984).
After due consideration, the court finds that the Plaintiff failed to provide the pretermination notice required under the termination provision of the lease. The court cannot read out of this lease the provision that "All termination notices must: . . . advise the Tenant that he/she has a specified number of days within which to request an informal hearing with the Landlord." The notice to quit only advises the Defendant that she has "ten (10) calendar days within which to respond to the agent for the owner, . . ." Given the ordinary meaning of the terms, a chance to respond is not necessarily the same as an informal hearing. The Plaintiff failed to comply with the pretermination process in the lease. The notice to quit is not proper.
Accordingly, the motion to dismiss is granted.