II LTD v. Justine Candler (2013)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

This summary process action came before the Court for trial on September 17, 2013 and October 9, 2013.   After consideration of all of the testimony, evidence and record, with the exception of exhibits admitted at trial for identification only, the court finds the following by a preponderance of the evidence.

1. The plaintiff and defendant entered into a one-year written lease for premises at 221 Mosic Court, Norwich, Connecticut.   Plaintiff's Exhibit 6.

2. The defendant took occupancy of the premises on January 1, 2013.   Rent has been paid in full through the end of December 2013.

3 Pursuant to the lease agreement, the defendant and her three minor children were allowed to occupy the premises

4. The plaintiff instituted this summary process action based upon its belief that the defendant was allowing Mr. Peeples to occupy the premises, in violation of the lease agreement.   The Court credits Ms. Churchill's testimony that she believed Peeples to be unlawfully occupying the premises.

5. Although copies of the Notice to Quit and pre-termination letter were appended to the Complaint when filed with the Court, neither document was offered as evidence at the trial.

6 At various relevant times, the defendant utilized a gold Audi vehicle, plate number 9667MU, which vehicle was owned by Matthew Peeples, and parked by the defendant in the parking lot of Mosic Court in the vicinity of the subject premises.   Plaintiff's Exhibits 3A–3D, 4A, 4B, 5 and 7.

7. During the month of August 2013, Deborah Churchill, property manager for the plaintiff, caused an automobile log to be prepared, which log depicted the presence of the Peeples vehicle parked at Mosic Court on nine occasions.   Plaintiff's Exhibit 2.

8. During relevant times, including the month of August 2013, the defendant was utilizing the Peeples vehicle, and parking it in the Mosic Court parking lot.

9. The Court credits the testimony of Mr. Peeples that he has visited the defendant at the subject premises, usually for a few hours at a time, but occasionally, overnight.   The Court credits the testimony of both Candler and Peeples that Peeples was not occupying the premises, but was living with his parents.   See Defendant's Exhibits B & C.

Based upon a careful review of all of the evidence, the Court finds that the trial evidence was insufficient to conclude by a preponderance of the evidence that Peeples was, at any relevant time, occupying the subject premises, other than visiting.   The Court further finds that the trial evidence was insufficient to conclude by a preponderance of the evidence that Peeples' visits to the subject premises violated the so-called “14–day rule” in the lease.   Therefore, the Court enters judgment for the defendant.

By the Court,

Goodrow, J.

Dated:  October 17, 2013

Goodrow, Karen, J.