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

2,339 chars

payment of ‘‘Rent.’’ Given that the defendant had just
       paid its outstanding balance to the plaintiff on May 8,
       2020, the plaintiff’s May 20 invoice for ‘‘Rent’’ certainly
       ‘‘could create reasonable doubt in the mind of a reason-
       able tenant as to whether the lease, in fact, remained
       terminated.’’ Centrix Management Co., LLC v. Valen-
       cia, supra, 132 Conn. App. 589. Although the plaintiff
       subsequently charged the defendant for ‘‘Use & Occu-
       pancy’’ from June to November, 2020, that same charge
       again was referred to as ‘‘Rent’’ in the invoices from
       December, 2020, through August, 2022, which could
       further cause a reasonable tenant to question whether
       the lease, in fact, had been terminated.
          Further, the plaintiff ignores the fact that, although its
       invoices between June and November, 2020, requested
       ‘‘Use & Occupancy’’ payments equivalent to the base
       rent due under the lease, it also requested payment of
       additional charges, including water, real estate taxes,
       late fees, and attorney’s fees that were purportedly due
       under the terms of the lease. Those additional charges
       suggest that the lease remained in effect because ‘‘after
       a notice to quit possession has been served, a tenant’s
       fixed tenancy is converted into a tenancy at sufferance.
       . . . A tenant at sufferance is released from his obliga-
       tions under a lease. . . . His only obligations are to
       pay the reasonable rental value of the property which
       he occupied in the form of use and occupancy payments
       . . . and to fulfill all statutory obligations.’’ (Citations
       omitted; footnote omitted.) Sproviero v. J.M. Scott
       Associates, Inc., 108 Conn. App. 454, 462–63, 948 A.2d
       379, cert. denied, 289 Conn. 906, 957 A.2d 873 (2008).
         We recognize that ‘‘[u]se and occupancy payments
       encompass a fair rental value of the property, which
       necessarily accounts for obligations that are assumed
       by a landlord in renting the property, such as septic
       system maintenance. . . . Although, in many
       instances, use and occupancy payments are equal to
Page 12                   CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                         0, 0

Other Sections in This Document (43)

Full Text