Michael O'Neil & Karen O'Neil v. Teresa Anderson & Roussell Hippolite (2010)

RULING AND ORDER

The court having heard testimony in connection with the summary process complaint enters the following findings of fact which it finds established at trial by a fair preponderance of the evidence:

The parties had a twenty-four-month lease agreement for premises located at 123 Oneco Street, Norwich, CT 06360.   The agreed upon rent was $1,150 per month.   The defendants Teresa Anderson and Roussell Hippolite ¹ did not make payment for rent due on May 1, 2010.   On May 18, 2010, the plaintiff caused a notice to quit possession to be served on the defendants to vacate the premises on or before May 22, 2010.   The plaintiff did not accept any payment for rent after the notice to quit was served and no payments were offered.   No rent has been paid to the plaintiffs or into the court for the months of May, June or July 2010.

The defendants have alleged the special defense that no rent was due as a result of housing code violations including defective electric wiring, sidewalks, railings, and windows.   The defendants also claimed that the summary process action was brought because Ms. Anderson contacted public officials or agencies regarding the circumstances.   The court finds that the defendant Anderson was not cooperative with housing inspection authorities after her complaint had been made and further, that no rent was paid into the court.

Therefore, the Court does finds no special defenses have been established.

NONPAYMENT OF RENT

In a summary process action based upon nonpayment of rent, the landlord must prove, by a fair preponderance of the evidence, all the elements of the case.   The essential elements are:  (1) On or about a certain date, the landlord and the tenant entered into an oral or written lease/rental agreement for a weekly/monthly/yearly term for use and occupancy of a certain premises;  (2) The tenant agreed to pay an agreed-upon rent by a certain date;  (3) The tenant took possession of the premises pursuant to the lease:  (4) The tenant failed to pay the rent due under the lease by a certain date;  (5) The landlord caused a proper Notice To Quit Possession to be served on the tenant to vacate the premises on before a certain termination date:  and (6) Although the time given in the Notice To Quit Possession of the premises has passed, the tenant remains in possession of the premises, See C.G.S. § 47a-23(a)(1)(D).  Specifically, the plaintiff alleges the defendants failed to pay rent for the month of May 2010.

Failure of the landlord to establish any of the necessary elements, by a fair preponderance of the evidence, would require judgment for the defendants.   Gulycz v. Stop & Shop Cos., 29 Conn.App. 519, 523, 615 A.2d. 1087 (1992).

The Court finds that the defendants failed to pay the rent for month of May 2010 prior to the service of the notice to quit.   The plaintiff has neither been offered nor accepted any payment from the defendants thereafter.   The defendants remain in occupancy of the premises beyond the date specified in the notice to quit.   The Court further finds that the defendants did not prove their defenses to the action.   Accordingly, the plaintiffs have proven the allegations in the complaint by a fair preponderance of the evidence.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the above stated reasons, the court enters judgment of immediate possession for the plaintiffs against the defendants.   Costs are also awarded as may be allowed by statute.

It is So Ordered, this 16th day of August 2010.

Jongbloed, J.

FOOTNOTES

FN1. Defendant Hippolite did not appear for trial and a default judgment shall enter accordingly..  FN1. Defendant Hippolite did not appear for trial and a default judgment shall enter accordingly.

Jongbloed, Barbara Bailey, J.