LLC v. Fair Rent Commission of the City of New Haven (2010)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

This matter is a landlord's appeal of a March 18th, 2009 Order of the Fair Rent Commission of the City of New Haven (“FRC”) in the matter of Elba Santos v. Soundview Property Renewal LLC and agents Susan & Ed Goodwin (FRC Case 1/1020-09).  “Any person aggrieved by any order of the commission may appeal to the superior court for the judicial district in which the town, city or borough is located.”  Connecticut General Statutes § 7-148c.

The FRC ruled that a proposed rent increase from $600 per month to $725 per month on a unit owned by appellants at 133 Clay Street, New Haven, Connecticut was unconscionable and ordered that the increase be limited to $50.00 per month.   The FRC stated at the conclusion of the hearing that its ruling was supported by the small size of the apartment and its consideration of the surrounding neighborhood.   The Record also reveals that the FRC considered the tenants' income, the fact that the tenants had not damaged the property, and the fact that the premises complied with applicable health and safety standards.   The landlord appeals the ruling, arguing that the FRC acted “arbitrarily and illegally and abused its discretion.”

Section 7-148c contains thirteen factors which a fair rent commission may consider in considering rent increases:  “In determining whether a rental charge or a proposed increase in a rental charge is so excessive, with due regard to all the circumstances, as to be harsh and unconscionable, a fair rent commission shall consider such of the following circumstances as are applicable to the type of accommodation:  (1) The rents charged for the same number of rooms in other housing accommodations in the same and in other areas of the municipality;  (2) the sanitary conditions existing in the housing accommodations in question;  (3) the number of bathtubs or showers, flush water closets, kitchen sinks and lavatory basins available to the occupants thereof;  (4) services, furniture, furnishings and equipment supplied therein;  (5) the size and number of bedrooms contained therein;  (6) repairs necessary to make such accommodations reasonably livable for the occupants accommodated therein;  (7) the amount of taxes and overhead expenses, including debt service, thereof;  (8) whether the accommodations are in compliance with the ordinances of the municipality and the general statutes relating to health and safety;  (9) the income of the petitioner and the availability of accommodations;  (10) the availability of utilities;  (11) damages done to the premises by the tenant, caused by other than ordinary wear and tear;  (12) the amount and frequency of increases in rental charges;  (13) whether, and the extent to which, the income from an increase in rental charges has been or will be reinvested in improvements to the accommodations.”

The question of whether the court would have reached the same conclusion as the FRC is irrelevant to the disposition of this appeal:  “The court's ultimate duty is only to decide whether, in light of the evidence, the agency has acted unreasonably, arbitrarily, illegally, or in abuse of its discretion.   Robinson v. Unemployment Security Board of Review, 181 Conn. 1, 5 (1980).   It is not the function of the court to retry the case or to substitute its judgment for that of the agency.  Madow v. Muzio, 176 Conn. 374, 376 (1978).   The ultimate issue is whether there is substantial evidence in the record to support the decision of the commission.  Jaser v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 43 Conn.App. 545, 548 (1996).”  Ninth Square Project Limited Partnership v. Fair Rent Commission of the City of New Haven, No. CVNH-03-11535, Judicial District of New Haven Housing Session at New Haven (December 2, 2004, Pinkus, J.) The substantial evidence standard allows the court to chart a course somewhere between de novo review of the FRC's action and complete abstention to its arbitrary whims.  Martland v. Zoning Commission of Woodbury, 114 Conn.App. 655, 663 (2009).

Appellant argues that the FRC was required to consider every one of the thirteen factors contained in § 7-148c or state why it didn't apply in this matter.   Such a strict requirement does not appear to have support in the law:  “[T]he Commission shall consider any or all of the thirteen circumstances outlined in reaching the decision.”   East Wintonbury Hill v. Bloomfield Fair Rent Commission, Docket No. CV 6257, Judicial District of Hartford Housing Session (March 26, 2002, Crawford, J.).   Appellant also claims that the FRC misinterpreted some of the evidence regarding the size of the unit in reaching its conclusions.   A review of the Record indicates that while the FRC may have been less than methodical in detailing the reasons behind its decision to limit the rent increase to $50.00 per month, it did consider a number of the statutory factors in reaching its conclusion.   In addition, while the Record reveals some freewheeling discussion and divergent views regarding the size of the unit, it appears that the FRC ultimately possessed an accurate picture of the situation by the time it formulated its ruling.

The court is wary of requiring administrative boards and commissions to operate with technical precision, particularly in view of the fact most are made up of citizen volunteers who serve without compensation.   While administrative decisions should not be motivated by unrelated personal vendettas, in the absence of a clear Record, it is perfectly appropriate for the court to review the Record in an attempt to infer the reasons behind the decision at issue.  “As long as a search of the record reveals the basis for the agency's decision consistent with the substantial evidence standard ․ then the reviewing court must infer that the [agency's decision should be sustained] ․ Courts must be scrupulous not to hamper the legitimate activities of civic administrative boards by indulging in a microscopic search for technical infirmities in their actions ․ This cautionary advice is especially apt whenever the court is reviewing a decision of a local commission composed of laypersons.”  (Citations omitted;  internal quotation marks omitted.)  Samperi v. Inland Wetlands Agency, 226 Conn. 579, 595-96 (2003).

Based on the foregoing, the court finds that the FRC's decision to limit the rent increase to $50.00 is supported by substantial evidence in the Record and, as a result, the decision was neither arbitrary, illegal nor an abuse of the FRC's discretion.   The appeal is dismissed.

James W. Abrams, Judge

Abrams, James W., J.