191 LLC v. Post et al. (2013)

COURT'S ORDER

THE COURT:  We did have a housing trial on Thursday, September 27th, 2013, and I'm going to read that case into the record with the Court's decision.   I've asked the monitor's assistance in making a transcript of that decision and the Court will sign that as its official decision.

So this is docket number 21074, case name 191 Franklin LLC versus Post et al.   And, again, there was a trial held in front of this Court on September 27th, 2013.   Attorney Jeffrey Low represented the plaintiff.   The defendants were self-represented.   At the time of the trial, the two defendants that were present were Ms. Toni Post and Mr. David Arkus.

The following will consist of the Court's decision in the case.   Based upon all of the evidence at trial and the record, the Court finds by a preponderance of the evidence the following:  Number one, the plaintiff and the defendant Toni Post had an oral month-to-month lease for rental of 191 Franklin Street, number four, Norwich, Connecticut, which agreement began on or about May 1st, 2013, with a rental amount of $600 per month to be paid by the defendant Toni Post on the first of each month.   Prior to the oral month-to-month lease, the parties had had a written lease which had expired by the time the month-to-month oral lease began.

Number two, Post violated her responsibilities as tenant pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes 47a–11 when she allowed John Doe number two, now known as David Arkus, to occupy the premises with her at some point during May 2013 in exchange for contribution towards the rent which was to be paid on the first of each month.

Number three, the plaintiff did not give the defendant Toni Post permission to allow Arkus to also occupy the premises.

Number four, on or about June 13, 2013, the plaintiff was—I'm sorry, the plaintiff notified the defendant Post through a pretermination letter that Post was in breach of the terms of the lease in various ways including by allowing an unauthorized occupant to stay at the apartment, by allowing guests to behave in a disturbing manner, by the presence of bed bugs in the apartment, and by the fact that one of the occupants “presents an immediate and serious danger to the safety of other tenants, including larceny, burglary, and/or robbery of another tenant.”   The notice/letter admitted as Plaintiff's Exhibit 1 at the housing trial allowed the defendant Post to cure the breach of the lease by July 1st, 2013, or suffer the consequence of termination of the rental agreement and summary process action resulting therefrom.

Number five, a notice to quit was properly served on the defendant Post by abode service on August 1st, 2013.   Additionally, John Doe one, John Doe two, John Doe three, and Jane Doe were also served by abode service with the notice to quit on August 1st, 2013.   The notice to quit alleged that there had been a violation of the tenant's responsibilities and that the defendant Post and the John Does and Jane Doe had, by their presence, created a nuisance and a serious nuisance.   The notice to quit required that the parties vacate the premises on or before August 6th, 2013.

Subsequent—this is number six—subsequent to the filing of the notice to quit, David Arkus was identified as John Doe number two.

Number seven, defendant Post vacated the premises on approximately August 6th, 2013, and although the time to quit has passed, the defendant Arkus remains in possession of the property.

Number eight, other individuals have occupied the premises with Post and/or Arkus since May 1st, 2013.   However, as of the date of the trial on September 27, 2013, Arkus alone was in possession of the property and was still occupying the property.

Number nine, Arkus's use and occupancy of the premises constitutes a nuisance pursuant to Connecticut General Statute 47a–32, in that his behavior interferes substantially with the comfort or safety of other tenants or occupants of the same or adjacent buildings or structures.   The Court makes no finding regarding whether Arkus's conduct constitutes a serious nuisance under the statute, as plaintiff's counsel conceded at the housing trial that plaintiff's claim of serious nuisance is not substantially different from its claim of nuisance in this case.

Number ten, Arkus's use and occupancy of the premises violates the terms of the oral month-to-month lease between the plaintiff and the defendant Post.

Number eleven, the Court finds that the plaintiff has met its burden to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Arkus's possession of the premises violates the terms of the lease between the plaintiff and defendant Post, that Arkus's possession of the premises constitutes a nuisance under the law, and further, the Court finds that the defendant Arkus has not met his burden of proving his alleged special defenses.

Therefore, the Court orders that the summary process action be granted and that the defendant Arkus vacate the premises on or before October 7th, 2013.

All right.   That constitutes the Court's decision in that matter.   Thank you very much.

Dated this 10th day of October 2013.

Hon. Karen A. Goodrow

Goodrow, Karen, J.