Anthony Petrella et al. v. Theodore Cox, Jr. et al. (2011)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

This is a summary process action based on nonpayment of rent.   The case was tried on August 1, 2011.   The court has weighed all the evidence and assessed the credibility of the witnesses.   Based on the evidence presented, the court makes the following findings regarding the respective claims and offenses.

On or about February 22, 2011, the landlords and the tenant, Cox entered into a rental agreement for the premises known as 567 Palmetto Road, Bridgeport, Connecticut.   The rental agreement was for a two-year period beginning on March 1, 2011 and the agreed upon rental was $2,000 per month.   On or about February 28, 2011, the residence sustained substantial water damage.   The tenants claim that because of the damage, they gave a personal check in March 2011 and a cashier's check in April 2011 in the amount of $1,000 each for the rent.   The landlords began this summary process action by the service of a valid notice to quit on April 25, 2011.

The tenants argue that paragraph 23 of the rental agreement allows them to pay the reduced amount.   Paragraph 23 reads in part:  My duty to pay rent may be reduced by fire or other casualties not caused by my negligence or willful act.   I will not be required to pay rent while my enjoyment of the property is substantially impaired.   I may also vacate any unusable part of the property.   My rent would be reduced to the extent that the fair rental value is reduced, and you will return any rent due to me.   Mr. Cox testified that he believed the water damaged approximately 50% of the house and accordingly, he paid to the landlords what he thought was the appropriate fair rental value.

The court agrees that paragraph 23 of the rental agreement would control the water damage situation.   However, for two reasons, the Court cannot agree with the defendant's argument for the reduced payment.   First, paragraph 23 clearly states that if the fair rental value is reduced, then the landlord would return any rent due to the tenant.   This anticipates that the tenant would pay the full rental amount and then will have an amount returned to him according to the reduction.   Here, the tenants made a payment less than the full rental amount putting them in violation of the rental agreement.

Secondly, the courts have consistently found that there must be an agreement between the parties for the fair rental value to be reduced.   In this case, the court finds no credible evidence as to the existence of an agreement for a reduced payment.   There was testimony by Mr. Cox as to a possible agreement and even a statement about an e-mail but no credible evidence was produced.   The plaintiff denied any conversations concerning a reduced rental payment.   Hence, the court cannot find that the parties had agreed to any payment less than the $2,000.   The Court notes that in absence of an agreement, one party to the agreement cannot decide on its own that the fair rental value should be reduced.   Although the court was provided several pictures of evidence concerning the water damage which may have affected the fair rental value of the premises, the tenant made the sole determination of the reduction without an agreement of the landlord.   Therefore, his obligation to pay the full rental value remained in effect.

The tenant also claims that the house was subject to multiple housing code violations from the city of Bridgeport and therefore, mandated the ability to pay a reduced rental payment.   Mr. Cox testified that because of the water damage he called the health department sometime prior to the service of the notice to quit.   Again however, the court finds no credible evidence as to the housing code violations.   No testimony was produced by a housing code or health department inspector in accordance with the rules of evidence.   The Court notes that the tenant did start a payment into court action in May 2011 but it was commenced after the service of the notice to quit bringing into question its validity as a defense in this action.   Without such a defense, the tenants were obligated to pay the full amount as called for by the rental agreement.

Lastly, the court heard a lot of testimony and viewed several exhibits relating to work performed by Mr. Cox and his company on the subject premises.   While Court notes that these claims may lay the basis for other actions, they do not have any bearing on this summary process action.   The sole claim of the plaintiff's complaint is that full rent due for March and April 2011 was not paid.   The court for the above stated reasons finds that the plaintiff has proved, by a fair preponderance of the evidence, all the elements of the case.

Having considered the law and equity, the Court enters judgment for the plaintiffs for immediate possession as to all parties.

MOORE, J.

Moore, Sheridan, J.