LLC v. Leroy Grant (2010)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

This is a summary process action based for possession of the subject premises at 17 Plainfield Street, Hartford, Connecticut.   On October 25, 2010, the parties appeared before this Court for trial on the complaint.   The plaintiff's first count alleges that the defendant failed to pay rent due pursuant to an oral month-to-month tenancy.   The second count asserts that the defendant originally had the right or privilege to occupy the subject premises but the right or privilege has terminated.   The defendant alleges as special defenses the there was no lease agreement, that he is disabled and that he is owed money by the plaintiffs.

The court has weighed all the evidence and assessed the testimony and credibility of the witnesses and reaches the conclusions set forth herein by a fair preponderance of the evidence.

FINDINGS

The plaintiffs are the owners of the premises and the defendant is the occupant.   The Defendant originally had the privilege to occupy the subject premises based on consent from his mother and his two aunts.   The evidence adduced at trial is that the plaintiffs have terminated the defendant's privilege to occupy the premises and requested that he quit possession.

On August 31, 2010, the plaintiff caused a written notice to quit to be served on the defendant with a quit date of September 4, 2010.   The time designated in the notice for the defendant to quit possession of the premises has passed.   The defendant remains in possession of the subject premises.

COUNT ONE

The plaintiff has failed to prove the non-payment claim by a fair preponderance of the evidence, there having been no evidence submitted that there was an agreement between the parties to pay rent.

COUNT TWO

The plaintiff has established by a fair preponderance of the evidence that the privilege the defendant was granted has terminated.   This was established both by the in court testimony of the plaintiff's witness and by the former testimony of the plaintiff Dorothy Grant as contained in a transcript of a deposition.   The plaintiff demonstrated the unavailability of Dorothy Grant sufficiently to have her prior transcribed testimony come within the hearsay exception contained in § 8-6 of the Connecticut Code of Evidence.

The defendant's special defense claiming disability is applicable to the instant action as the subject premises do not fall within the categories delineated in Connecticut General Statutes § 47a-23c.

To the extent the remaining claims in the defendant's answer can be considered by the court, the defendant appears to describe both a potential civil claim for damages and settlement negotiations between the parties.   Monetary damages is a clearly a matter inappropriate for this forum.

The defendant has failed to prove any of his special defenses by a fair preponderance of the evidence.

ORDER

The court enters judgment for possession of the subject premises in favor of the plaintiff with a final stay of execution through November 14, 2010.

By the Court

Hon. Vernon D. Oliver

Oliver, Vernon D., J.