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

2,444 chars

the parties’ previously agreed upon rent, a landlord may
          be entitled to a larger use and occupancy payment when
          it is forced to assume obligations that were once the
          responsibility of a tenant under a lease.’’ (Citation omit-
          ted.) Id., 465. Nevertheless, where the landlord identi-
          fies those charges, which have their foundation solely
          in the terms of the lease, separate from the use and
          occupancy payment it is seeking, it creates uncertainty
          as to the status of the lease and equivocates its notice
          to quit. This is particularly true in the present case,
          where the plaintiff invoiced the defendant separately
          for late fees and attorney’s fees, which are only required
          pursuant to the lease and cannot be an element of use
          and occupancy due from a tenant at sufferance. See,
          e.g., Milano v. Paladino, Superior Court, judicial district
          of New Haven, Housing Sesson, Docket No. CVNH 9007-
          3897 (April 3, 1991) (3 Conn. L. Rptr. 444, 445) (‘‘[t]he
          landlord cannot recover late charges as provided for
          in the lease for the months after the landlord terminated
          the lease through the service of a notice to quit’’). In
          fact, at oral argument before this court, counsel for the
          plaintiff conceded that items such as real estate taxes
          and late fees do not fall into the category of use and
          occupancy.
            The confusion created by the plaintiff’s invoices was
          compounded by the fact that it waited months before
          instituting the underlying action while it continued
          negotiations with the defendant regarding its continued
          tenancy at the premises. We have observed that ‘‘provid-
          ing a tenant with a new lease agreement or with an
          invitation to enter into a new rental agreement after a
          notice to quit has been served is inconsistent with an
          unequivocal notice to quit.’’ Centrix Management Co.,
          LLC v. Valencia, supra, 132 Conn. App. 587. In Centrix
          Management Co., LLC, the landlord served a notice to
          quit on the tenants after they failed to pay rent for four
          consecutive months. Id., 584. Following the notice to
0, 0                    CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                     Page 13

Other Sections in This Document (43)

Full Text