Rivermead, Inc. v. Shirley Wightman (2010)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

The plaintiff, Rivermead, Inc., has brought this summary process action seeking to regain possession of mobile home site known as 59 Shawnee Road, East Hartford, Connecticut (the “Premises”) from the defendant, Shirley Wightman.   The defendant is the owner and occupant of a mobile manufactured home (the “Mobile Home”) located on the Premises in a mobile manufactured home park consisting of roughly 486 mobile home sites.

On or about July 1, 2001, Colonial Mobilehome Park and Edith Lockard entered into a “Rental Agreement” pertaining to the Premises (Plaintiff's Exhibit 1).   The defendant purchased the Mobile Home from Lockard and the Rental Agreement was assigned to, and assumed by, the defendant on August 16, 2002.   (Plaintiff's Exhibit 2.) The plaintiff offered a group of five photocopies of documents entitled “Renewal of Rental Agreement” (Plaintiff's Exhibit 3) extending the term of the Rental Agreement for additional periods of one year each through July 31, 2008.¹  The parties agree that no further renewals were executed.   The last Renewal executed by the parties provided for a monthly rent of $330 through July 31, 2008.

The plaintiff's amended complaint alleges that the defendant failed to pay rent and other charges due for the months of January, February and March 2009.   The defendant asserts that she offered the rent for those months but the parties disagreed on the actual amount of the monthly rent and she also disputed the late charges claimed by the plaintiff.

The Rental Agreement provides that if the resident fails to pay the rent “on or before the ninth (9) of each month (sic) “five percent (5%) interest per month shall be imposed.”   A late charge of five percent per month is against public policy and unenforceable.   Accordingly, the plaintiff cannot recover any late charges in this action.

The general manager of the plaintiff testified as to the sums claimed to be owed by the defendant and submitted an Accounts Receivable Activity statement consisting of twenty-one pages.   Despite questions from the court concerning the methodology utilized in preparing the statement, the court finds that the statement is anything but a model of clarity.   The statement shows a number of entries in the “paid” column labeled as “rent” received by the plaintiff after the date that the notice to quit was served.²  Moreover, it contains a running balance of various charges including water, heating oil, plumbing and other repairs as well as $622.57 in late payment charges.   The last entries show that over the period of eight years, the defendant was “billed” $31,523.57 and “paid” $29,557.37 leaving a “balance” of $1,966.20.   Without passing on the accuracy of the other entries in the account statement, the court notes that if the improper late fees of $622.57 are subtracted from the balance claimed, the balance would be reduced to $1,343.63.

In addition to the plaintiff's significant challenge to sustain its burden to prove all issues related to standing, the formation of an enforceable agreement with the defendant and to clearly prove that the defendant is obligated to pay the sums claimed in the complaint, the court finds that the facts of this case compel the court to find for the defendant on the equitable doctrine against forfeiture.  “Equitable principles barring forfeitures may apply to summary process actions for nonpayment of rent if:  (1) the tenant's breach was not [wilful] or grossly negligent;  (2) upon eviction the tenant will suffer a loss wholly disproportionate to the injury to the landlord;  and (3) the landlord's injury is reparable.”  Cumberland Farms, Inc. v. Dairy Mart, Inc., 225 Conn. 771, 778;  627 A.2d 386 (1993).   See also 19 Perry Street, LLC v. Unionville Water Company, 294 Conn. 611, 987 A.2d 1009 (2010).   Moreover, “[t]he doctrine against forfeitures applies to a failure to pay rent in full when that failure is accompanied by a good faith intent to comply with the lease or a good faith dispute over the meaning of a lease.”  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)   Id. On the basis of the testimony and documentary evidence, the court finds that (i) any breach by the defendant was neither willful or grossly negligent, (ii) upon eviction, the defendant will suffer a loss wholly disproportionate to the injury to the plaintiff and;  (iii) the plaintiff's injury is reparable.

With these principles in mind, the court orders a further hearing to be scheduled by the clerk, at which the parties may present evidence from which the court will determine the actual amount due following which the court will enter an appropriate order of payment by the defendant.

SO ORDERED.

BY THE COURT,

Gilligan, J.

FOOTNOTES

FN1. Unlike the original Rental Agreement which was executed in the name of Colonial Mobilehome Park as “Owner,” the Renewal of Rental Agreements were made in the name of “Colonial Mobile Home Park, Inc.” as “Park Owner.”   No explanation of the discrepancy was offered by the plaintiff..  FN1. Unlike the original Rental Agreement which was executed in the name of Colonial Mobilehome Park as “Owner,” the Renewal of Rental Agreements were made in the name of “Colonial Mobile Home Park, Inc.” as “Park Owner.”   No explanation of the discrepancy was offered by the plaintiff.

FN2. In view of the court's decision that follows, the court does not deem it necessary, at the present time, to rule on whether the plaintiff's acceptance of payments were valid use and occupancy payments or rent payments which would vitiate the notice to quit..  FN2. In view of the court's decision that follows, the court does not deem it necessary, at the present time, to rule on whether the plaintiff's acceptance of payments were valid use and occupancy payments or rent payments which would vitiate the notice to quit.

Gilligan, Robert G., J.