914 North Colony, LLC v. 99 West, LLC, 226 Conn. App. 720 (2024)

The plaintiff landlord and the defendant tenant entered into a lease agree-
            ment that required the defendant to pay base rent on a monthly basis,
            as well as charges for real estate taxes and water and sewer assessments.
            After the defendant failed to make its rent payment in April, 2020, the
            plaintiff served the defendant with a notice to quit for nonpayment of
            rent, which included a disclaimer stating that any payments tendered
            after the service of the notice to quit would be accepted as use and
            occupancy only. One day before the quit date on the notice, the defendant
            tendered payment for the April and May, 2020, base rent. Shortly there-
            after and for the next few months, the parties’ representatives had
            discussions regarding the defendant’s tenancy at the premises. The plain-
            tiff commenced the present action seeking to recover possession of the
            premises in October, 2020, when it became apparent that the defendant
            would not agree to a new lease. During the months when discussions
            were taking place between the parties’ representatives, as well as after
            the underlying action was commenced, the plaintiff continued to send
            invoices to the defendant itemizing charges accruing under the lease,
            including rent, attorney’s fees, real estate taxes, and late fees, while at
            times also requesting use and occupancy payments. The defendant made
            payments in response to each invoice. Following the plaintiff’s case-in-
            chief at trial, the defendant’s counsel made an oral motion to dismiss
            on the basis that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. The court
            granted the motion to dismiss, finding that the plaintiff’s conduct after
            service of the notice to quit had rendered the notice to quit equivocal.
            On the plaintiff’s appeal to this court, held that the trial court properly
            found that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the summary process
            action: the plaintiff’s inconsistent characterization of what the lease
            referred to as base rent, its requests for payment including additional
            charges that were purportedly due under the terms of the lease, and
            the delay in initiating the summary process action undermined the effec-
            tiveness of the use and occupancy disclaimer; moreover, the plaintiff’s
            actions created reasonable doubt in the mind of a reasonable tenant as
            to whether the lease, in fact, remained terminated, and the trial court
            therefore properly concluded that the notice to quit was rendered equivo-
            cal by the plaintiff’s conduct.