Rivermead, Inc. v. Shirley Wightman (2010)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE MOTION TO OPEN/MOTION FOR CONTEMPT

This matter began as a summary process action related to the possession of a mobile manufactured home site known as 59 Shawnee Road, East Hartford, Connecticut.   The defendant is the owner of a mobile manufactured home located on the premises in a mobile manufactured home park.

This matter has been the subject of numerous motions, hearings, trials and requests to review.   Given this procedural history, this Court inquiry must necessarily be narrow and limited to issues directly related to possession and equity.

This action commenced with a complaint filed by the plaintiff June 15, 2009 seeking possession of the aforementioned premises based upon nonpayment of rent.   Thereafter, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint laying out its claims with more specificity, as ordered by the court.   The defendant filed an answer and special defenses on August 6, 2009 claiming that all rent was paid, that rent was offered prior to service of the notice to quit and retaliatory eviction.

The court (Gilligan, J.) conducted a summary process trial on October 14, 2009.   In a memorandum of decision filed June 7, 2010, the trial court entered judgment in favor of the defendant, writing, in pertinent part:  “․ [T]he court finds that the facts of this case compel the court to find for the defendant on the equitable doctrine against forfeiture.”  (Memorandum of Decision, 6/7/10.)   The court found, on the basis of the evidence, that “ ․ any breach [of the lease agreement] by the defendant was neither willful [n]or grossly negligent ․ upon eviction, the defendant will suffer a loss wholly disproportionate to the injury to the plaintiff and ․ the plaintiff's injury is reparable.”  Id.

Thereafter, on July 13, 2010, the court conducted a hearing to determine “the actual amount due [to the plaintiff from the defendant] following which the court will enter an appropriate order of payment by the defendant.”  Id. After the hearing, the court found the amount of the defendant's arrearage to the plaintiff to be $4,620.00 through July 13, 2010.  (Memorandum of Decision, 7/14/10.)   The court ordered the defendant to pay use and occupancy payments at the last agreed upon rental amount of $330.00 per month due on or before the tenth day of each month beginning in August 2010.   The Court further ordered the defendant to satisfy the $4,620.00 arrearage by making six equal payments of $770.00 on or before the twentieth day of each month, beginning August 2010.   Additionally, the court ordered the defendant to pay and remain current with all utility charges and other proper charges due under the rental agreement.   Finally, the court ruled that, upon the defendant's satisfactory compliance with its orders, the defendant would be reinstated as a tenant in good standing on February 1, 2011.  (Memorandum of Decision, 7/14/10.)

The defendant, in a Motion to Review dated July 16, 2010, requested the court modify its determination of the arrearage due.   On July 21, 2010, the court declined to do so.  (Motion to Review 7/16/10.)

At a hearing before the court on September 27, 2010, the plaintiff sought, pursuant to affidavits for non-compliance, an order that execution issue in its favor for possession of the subject premises in this matter.   However, based on the aforementioned procedural history and orders of the court, this court declined to enter a judgment of possession as requested by the plaintiff, noting that the trial court (Gilligan, J.) entered judgment for the defendant under the equitable doctrine against forfeiture.   Although there were conditions of payment later ordered by the same trial court, there was no indication as to the consequences to the defendant of non-compliance with the court's orders of payment.   On that basis, this court sustained the defendant's objection to execution.

Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed a Motion to Open Judgment and a Motion for Contempt, Postjudgment.   The defendant filed a counterclaim seeking monetary damages and further requesting that this court modify the amount of the arrearage determined by the trial court.   The bases for the defendant's request to change the amount due as an arrearage are identical to those set forth in the defendant's answer to the amended complaint.

FINDINGS OF FACT

The court incorporates the evidence and testimony adduced at the hearing on the plaintiff's affidavits of non-compliance held before this court on September 27, 2010.   As this court indicated in its written memorandum of decision dated September 29, 2010, the plaintiff had demonstrated the defendant's non-compliance with the trial court's order.   In fact, at that hearing, there was no dispute from the defendant that the use and occupancy and arrearage payments were not timely made.   At the hearing on the Motion to Open and Motion for Contempt, the parties agreed that no use and occupancy or arrearage payments have been made since the September 27, 2010 hearing.

DISCUSSION

At the initial trial on the summary process complaint, the trial court, sua sponte, interposed the equitable doctrine against forfeiture in entering judgment in favor of the defendant.   This claim for equitable relief is a special defense available to defendants in summary process actions for nonpayment of rent as it implicates the right to possession.  Fellows v. Martin, 223 Conn. 152 (1992).  “Facts which are consistent with [the plaintiff's statements of fact] but show, notwithstanding, that the plaintiff has no cause of action, must be specially alleged.”  Connecticut Practice Book § 10-50 (2010).

In its decision, the court, in invoking this equitable defense on the defendant's behalf, necessarily found an injury to the plaintiff caused by the defendant's failure to pay rent.   The court found that the nonpayment was “neither willful [n]or grossly negligent,” but a failure to pay nonetheless.   (MOD, 6/7/10.)   In so finding, the trial court established an arrearage ($4,620.00), arrearage payments, as well as monthly use and occupancy payments ($330.00) to be made by the defendant to the plaintiff going forward.  (MOD, 7/14/10.)   This court finds, by a fair preponderance of the evidence that the defendant has failed to make both the arrearage and use and occupancy payments as ordered by the trial court.

“[O]nce any equitable claim has been raised, the court retains its equitable jurisdiction to consider all of the equities before it in order to render complete justice.”  Natural Harmony, Inc., v. Norman, 211 Conn. 145, 149 (1989).   In the instant matter, rendering complete justice means not only clearly establishing the responsibilities of the parties, but also the consequences of non-compliance.

The plaintiff's Motion to Open Judgment is granted;

The plaintiff's Motion for Contempt is denied, as the following order unambiguously informs the defendant of the consequences of non-compliance with this Court's order;

The defendant's counterclaim seeking monetary damages is dismissed, as such claims are inappropriate in summary process actions as they do not implicate the right to possession.  Atlantic Refining Co. v. O'Keefe, 131 Conn. 528, 531 (1945).   The court also notes that the defendant's remaining counterclaim alleging zoning violations by the plaintiff was previously litigated and adjudicated as part of the underlying summary process trial.  (See Answer, 8/6/09), therefore, the doctrine of res judicata applies and this court will not again take up the matter.

ORDER

The Court renders judgment for possession of the subject premises for the defendant conditioned upon the payment by the defendant of the amounts specified below on or before the dates specified below.   If the defendant fails to make the payments as specified below, the court will enter judgment for possession of the subject premises in favor of the plaintiff.

The Court finds the amount of the defendant's arrearage to the plaintiff to be $5,610.00

$4,620.00 unpaid arrearage through July 13, 2010

$330.00 unpaid use and occupancy, September 2010

$330.00 unpaid use and occupancy, October 2010

$330.00 unpaid use and occupancy, November 2010

$5,610.00 total arrearage due through November 2010

($770.00) money order entered into evidence at September 27, 2010 hearing

$4,840.00 remaining arrearage due

The money order in the amount of $770.00, entered into evidence at the September 27, 2010 hearing as Plaintiff's exhibit # 1 will be photocopied and the original disbursed to the Plaintiff on December 6, 2010;

The remaining arrearage of $4,840.00 will be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff in eight equal installments of six hundred five ($605.00) dollars on or before the twentieth of each month, beginning December 20, 2010 and concluding with the final payment due on or before July 20, 2011;

The defendant will pay reasonable use and occupancy to the plaintiff in the amount of the last agreed upon rent of three hundred thirty ($330.00) due on or before the tenth of each month, beginning December 10, 2010.

All payments are to be made by money order, bank check or other certified funds.

The defendant is ordered to remain current and timely pay all utility and other proper charges due under the rental agreement with the plaintiff.

Upon satisfactory compliance, the defendant shall be reinstated as a tenant in good standing on August 1, 2011.

By the Court

Hon. Vernon D. Oliver

Oliver, Vernon D., J.