Brook Run Development Corp. v. Noon, 230 Conn. App. 424 (2025)

court improperly concluded that her residential lease
       with the plaintiff had terminated because a specific
       provision of the lease did not operate to automatically
       renew the lease.2 We affirm the judgment of the court.
          The following undisputed facts and procedural his-
       tory are relevant to our resolution of this appeal. The
       plaintiff is the owner of real property located at 183
       Bull Hill Lane, Unit 12, in West Haven (premises). On
       November 17, 2012, the plaintiff and the defendant
       entered into a residential lease agreement for the prem-
       ises, at the amount of $1200 per month (lease). The
       original lease term was for two years, running through
       December 14, 2014. The typed lease, prepared by the
       plaintiff, defined certain terms used therein, noting that
       ‘‘the words ‘we,’ ‘us,’ and ‘our’ means the [l]andlord’’
       and ‘‘[t]he words ‘you’ and ‘yours’ means the [t]enant.’’
       It also contained a handwritten provision labeled 10 (A)
       which read as follows: ‘‘This lease will automatical[l]y
       renew on every an[n]iversary for the term of one year
       unless a written [agreement] is signed by us, or you
       vacate the apartment when the lease ends.’’ The final
       relevant portion of the lease was a holdover provision,
       paragraph 18, which read as follows: ‘‘If you continue
       to occupy the [a]partment with our consent after this
       lease ends, this lease will be on a monthly basis. In that
       case, either you or we can send a notice to the other
       and cancel lease at any time. All the other terms of this
       lease will still apply.’’
         The defendant took possession of the premises and
       has remained there throughout the events relevant to
       this appeal. On September 19, 2021, the plaintiff sent
       the defendant a notice of lease nonrenewal. That notice
       informed the defendant that the lease would no longer
         2
           Although the defendant presents six issues in her briefing to this court,
       they may be distilled to the question of whether the trial court properly
       interpreted the lease in concluding that the automatic renewal provision
       had terminated.
Page 2                        CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                                    0, 0