Clay Hill Associates v. Irizarry et al. (2009)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

This is a summary process action brought by the plaintiff, Clay Hill Associates (“Landlord”) seeking to recover possession of 39 Seyms Street, Unit A3, Hartford, Connecticut, presently occupied by the defendant, Marisol Irizarry (“Tenant”).

BACKGROUND

The plaintiff's notice to quit and two-count complaint allege that the defendant violated the written rental agreement between the parties.   (Plaintiff's Exhibit 1.) The first count in the Landlord's complaint alleges that the defendant violated the provisions of the rental agreement which require the Tenant to timely submit the information required to process and determine her eligibility to continue to receive HUD rental assistance payments.   The second count alleges that the Tenant violated the lease requirement that she reside in the unit.   The Landlord further alleges that “On December 1, 2008, the plaintiff caused a KAPA Notice to be mailed to the defendants” requesting that the violations described in both counts be corrected.

The Landlord's property manager, Roberto Ruiz, testified that he provided the Tenant with an Initial Notice of Annual Recertification when the Tenant entered into the lease.  (Plaintiff's Exhibit 2.) The Initial Notice informed the Tenant that her rent would be re-determined on the next Recertification Date which would be January 1, 2009.   The Initial Notice also informed the Tenant, in bold print, that she was required to meet with the property manager to provide income and family information no later than November 10, 2008.   Additionally, the notice informed the defendant that if she failed to meet and provide the required income and family information by January 1, 2009, the lease permitted the Landlord to raise the monthly rent to the full contract rate.   The Tenant's signature is affixed to the Initial Notice.

The property manager also testified that the Tenant was provided with an Annual Re-certification First Reminder Notice dated October 17, 2008.   The reminder notice specified all the information needed to process the re-certification and informed the Tenant that her appointment had been scheduled for October 28, 2008 at 11:00 a.m. The first reminder notice again advised the Tenant that if she failed to meet with the property manager and to provide the necessary information, the lease permitted the Landlord to remove the HUD subsidy from her unit and she would be required to pay the full contract rent.   The Tenant failed to attend the meeting and a Second Reminder Notice was sent on October 30, 2008 instructing the Tenant of the need for the Tenant to schedule a recertification meeting and provide the required information or the HUD subsidy would be removed and the Tenant would be responsible for the full contract rent.

The Tenant submitted a Recertification Update on November 26, 2008 which listed her sole income as social security benefits of $626.00.   The Landlord was advised by an employer on December 12, 2008 that the Tenant had been a full-time employee since October 6, 2008 earning $14.00 per hour (Plaintiff's Exhibit 7).   The Landlord met with the Tenant on December 30, 2008 to have new recertification documents signed which, based on the Tenant's income, would have required the Tenant to pay $731.00 of the $966.00 subsidized rent.   The Landlord's property manager testified that, at the meeting, the Tenant refused to sign the required HUD documents.

Based on the documentary and testimonial evidence submitted, the court finds that the plaintiff Landlord has sustained its burden to prove that the defendant Tenant has violated the terms of the rental agreement.   The defendant Tenant has failed to assert and prove any special defense.

Judgment for immediate possession of the premises is entered in favor of the plaintiff Landlord.

SO ORDERED.

BY THE COURT,

Gilligan, J.

Gilligan, Robert G., J.