Maurice Cunniffe v. Susan O'Hara Cunniffe (2010)

Memorandum of Decision

This summary process action was brought by the plaintiff to recover possession of the premises at 65 John Street, Greenwich, Connecticut, based on a notice to quit containing three counts;  1. Your original right of privilege to occupy said premises is terminated. 2. Lease (Lapse) of time and 3. Unauthorized occupancy.   The complaint was brought on one count for lapse of time.

The Court finds the following:  Maurice Cunniffe is the sole owner of the property at 65 John Street, Greenwich, Connecticut.   He became the owner of the property when his wife died in October 2008.   On August 25, 2010 the plaintiff served a notice to quit on the tenant to vacate on or before August 31, 2010.   He then commenced this action for lapse of time by service of the writ summons and complaint on September 1, 2010.   The defendant still occupies said premises.

At trial, despite the Court's finding that the plaintiff owned the property, the defendant failed to prove that the property is owned or held in trust by any other person.   Furthermore, the defendant failed to show anyone has an equal or superior interest in the property to the plaintiff.

Law And Argument

Under Connecticut law;  “title to real estate vests immediately, at the death of the owner in a deceased's heirs or in devisees, upon the admission of a will to probate.”   See Satti v. Rago, 186 Conn. 360, 365 1982;  O'Connor v. Chiascione, 130 Conn. 304, 306-08;  Cardillo v. Cardillo, 27 Conn.App. 208.   Maurice Cunniffe became the owner of 65 John Street, Greenwich, CT upon the death of his wife Jane M. Cunniffe, in October 2008.  “The jurisdiction of the Superior Court in summary process actions ․ is subject to a condition precedent.   Before the court can entertain a summary process action and evict a tenant, the owner of the land must previously have served the tenant with notice to quit ․ As a condition precedent to a summary process action, proper notice to quit is a jurisdictional necessity.”  (Citations omitted.)   Lampasona v. Jacobs, 209 Conn. 724, 728-29.   Service of a notice to quit possession is typically a landlord's unequivocal act notifying the tenant of termination of the lease.”  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  Young v. Vlahos, 103 Conn.App. 470, 480 (2007).   The notice to quit was served on Susan O'Hara Cunniffe on August 25, 2010 with a quit date of August 31, 2010.

Plaintiff has proven his case.   Maurice Cunniffe is the owner of the premises.   The service of the notice to quit on August 25, 2010 was the only notice he was required to provide to the tenant.   It gave the tenant until August 31, 2010 to vacate.   While the notice to quit stated lease of time, it is clear from the evidence that defendant understood it to mean lapse of time, and that this misspelling was a grammatical error.

Accordingly, the Court enters judgment for possession in favor of the plaintiff on the grounds of lapse of time.

BY THE COURT,

Grogins, JTR

Grogins, Jack L., J.T.R.