LLC v. Farid Amiri et al. (2012)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

This is a summary process action commenced by Matt–Kate Clinton, LLC against Farid a/k/a Safiullah a/k/a Safiulla Amiri, Anita Amiri, Jane Doe and John Doe seeking possession of the premises known as 42–44 West Main Street, Apartment 7, Clinton, Connecticut.   The plaintiff claims that the defendants took possession of the premises pursuant to the terms of a written lease and thereafter failed to pay rent due under the lease on January 1, 2012 and thereafter.   The appearing defendants have raised the defense that this action is retaliatory and is being brought because they contacted their landlord and/or public officials or agencies to complain about mold in the apartment.   A trial was held in this case on March 12, 2012.

In a summary process action based upon a claim for nonpayment of rent, the plaintiff must establish, by a fair preponderance of the evidence, the following essential elements:  (1) the existence of a rental agreement (oral or written;  weekly, monthly or yearly);  (2) that the plaintiff is the lessor or owner of the premises;  (3) the address of the subject premises;  (4) the amount of rent due to the plaintiff from the defendant;  (5) when the rent was due to the plaintiff;  (6) the date of nonpayment;  (7) the proper service of the notice to quit, including the service date and termination date;  and (8) that the defendant is still in possession.  Conn. Gen.Stat. § 47a–15a et seq.   Failure by the plaintiff to establish any of the necessary elements of its cause of action by a fair preponderance of the evidence will result in judgment for the defendant.

The court has weighed all the evidence, assessed the testimony and credibility of the witnesses, and finds as follows.

The plaintiff in this action is Matt–Kate Clinton, LLC. The complaint alleges that on or about September 1, 2011, the plaintiff and the defendants entered into a written lease agreement for the subject premises.   At trial, the plaintiff, through the testimony of its managing member William Esposito, introduced into evidence the lease agreement and testified that the plaintiff is the landlord.   However, and contrary to the testimony of Mr. Esposito, the lease reflects that the landlord is not Matt–Kate Clinton, LLC, but rather William T. Esposito, in his individual capacity.  “William T. Esposito” is identified in the lease as the “OWNER.”   The signature page of the lease reflects that the lease is signed in an individual capacity, not in a representative capacity on behalf of a limited liability company.   Further, the Addendum to Lease Agreement provides that rent checks are to be made out to “William T. Esposito.”   There is no reference in the lease to the named plaintiff in this action, Matt–Kate Clinton, LLC. There was no evidence introduced at trial that the lease was assigned to the plaintiff.

Based upon the foregoing facts, the Court finds that the plaintiff has not sustained its burden of proving by a fair preponderance of the evidence that it is the lessor or owner of the premises which are the subject of this action.   Accordingly, judgment shall enter in favor of the defendants.

Lisa Kelly Morgan, Judge

Morgan, Lisa K., J.