Cyril Green v. Mary Arsenault and Joseph Arsenault (2010)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

On June 29, 2010, trial was held in the above referenced summary process action.   The plaintiff, Cyril Green, was represented by counsel.   The two defendants represented themselves.   The plaintiff, Cyril Green and one defendant, Mary Arsenault, testified.   The following facts were ascertained by a fair preponderance of the evidence.

On September 25, 2009, the defendants quitclaimed to the plaintiff their interest in property known as 50 First Street in Lebanon, Connecticut, a single-family dwelling.   The defendants remained in possession of that premises thereafter.   Both the plaintiff and the defendant Mary Arsenault testified that there was no lease or rental agreement, nor was there any meeting of the minds as to compensation to the plaintiff for allowing the defendants to continue to occupy the premises.  General Statutes § 47a-23(a), which governs summary process actions, provides in relevant part:  “When the owner or lessor ․ desires to obtain possession or occupancy of any land or building, any apartment in any building, [or] any dwelling unit ․ and ․ (3) when one originally had the right or privilege to occupy such premises but such right or privilege has terminated ․ such owner or lessor ․ shall give notice to each lessee or occupant to quit possession or occupancy of such land, building, apartment or dwelling unit ․”

The plaintiff served a notice to quit upon the defendants, claiming their right or privilege to occupy the premises has terminated.   The plaintiff then filed a summary process action seeking possession of the premises.

The defendant, Mary Arsenault, testified that she did not comprehend or care that she was signing a quit claim deed on September 25, 2009 because she was suffering from depression.   The defendant offered no documentary evidence of her medical condition, nor did she offer any evidence that her mental capacity was impaired on that date.   The court does not find that Ms. Arsenault's claim of diminished mental capacity to be proven by a fair preponderance of the evidence.   The defendant offered no evidence that she was physically disabled as alleged in her special defense and conceded that the premises was not a building or complex of five or more units, as required by General Statutes § 47a-23c.   Therefore, this defendant cannot prevail on her special defense.

By a fair preponderance of the evidence, the court finds that, on September 25, 2009, the defendants' right to occupy or possess the premises located at 50 First Street terminated.   A valid notice to quit was served upon the defendants and the defendants have remained on the premises when such right to do so has terminated.   Judgment for immediate possession of the premises is awarded to the plaintiff.

THE COURT,

Young, J.

Young, Robert E., J.