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

2,451 chars

prospective new tenant for the premises. Id., 840. It
          included an ultimatum for the tenants either to vacate
          the premises or to negotiate separately with the new
          tenant by a specified deadline. Id., 840–41. Following
          the notice to quit, one of the tenants attempted to nego-
          tiate with the prospective new tenant but they could
          not come to agreeable terms. Id., 842–43. When
          informing the landlord’s agent of this impasse, the agent
          told the tenant to either sign the proposed sublease
          with the prospective tenant within thirty-five minutes
          or the landlord would continue with the eviction action.
          Id., 843. Thereafter, the tenant, the prospective tenant,
          and the landlord’s agent met. Id. During the meeting,
          the prospective tenant promised to accommodate the
          tenant in the proposed lease documents; however, no
          agreement was reached. Id. The trial court rendered a
          judgment of possession in favor of the landlord, con-
          cluding that the notice to quit was unequivocal. Id.,
          837–38. The tenants appealed, claiming that the notice
          to quit was equivocal, as the options presented in the
          notice to quit suggested that a new agreement could
          be negotiated and, in the alternative, that the landlord’s
          subsequent actions equivocated the notice to quit. Id.,
          838. This court rejected the tenants’ claim, holding that,
          ‘‘even if we assume that the [statements in the notice
          to quit] could be construed as inviting the [tenants] to
          enter into a new lease, that invitation would not have
          rendered the [landlord’s] notice equivocal because it
          was accompanied by language clearly communicating
          that eviction would occur in the absence of an agree-
          ment to the contrary.’’ Id., 841–42. Addressing the ten-
          ants’ alternative argument, this court held that the trial
          court’s conclusion that the subsequent comments by
          the landlord’s agent constituted a clear and unequivocal
          warning that the eviction action would proceed in the
          absence of a new agreement with the new tenant was
          consistent with our holding in Centrix Management
0, 0                    CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                     Page 15

Other Sections in This Document (43)

Full Text