From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Loureiro v. Drobiak

Connecticut Superior Court, Judicial District of Hartford-New Britain at Hartford
Aug 3, 1995
1995 Ct. Sup. 9863 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1995)

Opinion

No. 81608

August 3, 1995


CORRECTED MEMORANDUM OF DECISION


The fifth line of this decision should reflect the fact that the lease beginning May 1, 1995 expired on April 30, 1996.

Alexandra Davis DiPentima, Judge

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

In this residential summary process action, the plaintiff seeks possession for lapse of time of an oral month to month tenancy. The defendant pled a special defense of retaliatory eviction.

The court finds the following pertinent facts after trial. The parties entered into a written lease that expired by its terms on April 30, 1995. On May 2, 1995 the plaintiff signed and delivered a lease to the defendant for a term beginning May 1, 1995 and expiring April 30, 1995. On May 22, 1995, the defendant tendered a check representing use and occupancy plus a payment on the security deposit (totaling $885) which was refused by the plaintiff. On May 25, 1995, the defendant tendered two checks representing use and occupancy and a payment (totaling $885) on the security deposit that was accepted by the plaintiff. The Notice to Quit in this action was served on the defendant on May 26, 1995 with a quit date of June 5, 1995. On June 6, 1995, the plaintiff telephoned the defendant and asked him when he was going to sign the new lease. The defendant signed the lease on June 6, 1995 and left it in the plaintiff's mailbox. The plaintiff never took it out of the mailbox. The defendant ultimately retrieved it from the mailbox.

The special defense of retaliatory eviction is governed by C.G.S. § 47a-20. Under that statute, the court finds that the allegations of the defendant's report to town officials of the plaintiff's illegal occupancy of distinct premises from the subject premises insufficient as a matter of law.

While the court finds that the notice to quit was properly served to terminate the month to month tenancy for May, it is concerned that the defendant received ambiguous messages from the


Summaries of

Loureiro v. Drobiak

Connecticut Superior Court, Judicial District of Hartford-New Britain at Hartford
Aug 3, 1995
1995 Ct. Sup. 9863 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1995)
Case details for

Loureiro v. Drobiak

Case Details

Full title:JOSE M. LOUREIRO v. JON F. DROBIAK

Court:Connecticut Superior Court, Judicial District of Hartford-New Britain at Hartford

Date published: Aug 3, 1995

Citations

1995 Ct. Sup. 9863 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1995)
1995 Ct. Sup. 9657

Citing Cases

Centrix Mgmt. Co. v. Valencia

onsistently have held that providing a tenant with a new lease agreement or with an invitation to enter into…