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

Citation: 914 North Colony, LLC v. 99 West, LLC, 226 Conn. App. 720 (2024)
Parent Document: 914 North Colony, LLC v. 99 West, LLC, 226 Conn. App. 720 (2024)
Jurisdiction: Connecticut (state)
Effective Date: 2024-07-16
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10131828/914-north-colony-llc-v-99-west-llc/ ↗

Full Text

2,430 chars

to quit. In response, the defendant argues that the plain-
       tiff mischaracterizes the court’s reasoning. According to
       the defendant, the court relied not only on the plaintiff’s
       acceptance of payments from the defendant, but also
       on the entirety of the plaintiff’s conduct after it served
       the notice to quit, including its sending of invoices seek-
       ing the payment of sums due under the lease, its negotia-
       tions with the defendant on new lease terms, and its
       delay in instituting the underlying action.
          We, therefore, begin with a review of the court’s
       judgment. ‘‘The interpretation of a trial court’s judgment
       presents a question of law over which our review is
       plenary. . . . As a general rule, judgments are to be
       construed in the same fashion as other written instru-
       ments. . . . The determinative factor is the intention
       of the court as gathered from all parts of the judgment.
       . . . Effect must be given to that which is clearly
       implied as well as to that which is expressed. . . . The
       judgment should admit of a consistent construction as
       a whole. . . . [W]e are mindful that an opinion must
       be read as a whole, without particular portions read in
       isolation, to discern the parameters of its holding. . . .
       Furthermore, [w]e read an ambiguous trial court record
       so as to support, rather than contradict, its judgment.’’
       (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re November H.,
       202 Conn. App. 106, 118, 243 A.3d 839 (2020). Although
       the court in the present case referenced the plaintiff’s
       acceptance of the May payment as supporting its con-
       clusion that the plaintiff’s conduct equivocated the
       lease, it also referred to the plaintiff’s other conduct,
       including the invoices sent by the plaintiff following
       the notice to quit and the delayed commencement of the
       summary process action. Consequently, we consider,
       as did the trial court, the entirety of the plaintiff’s con-
       duct after it served the notice to quit.
         As previously noted, the plaintiff’s primary argument
       on appeal is that, because it included a use and occu-
       pancy disclaimer in the notice to quit, the defendant
Page 10                    CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                         0, 0

Other Sections in This Document (43)

Full Text