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

Citation: Brook Run Development Corp. v. Noon, 230 Conn. App. 424 (2025)
Parent Document: Brook Run Development Corp. v. Noon, 230 Conn. App. 424 (2025)
Jurisdiction: Connecticut (state)
Effective Date: 2025-01-28
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10320924/brook-run-development-corp-v-noon/ ↗

Full Text

1,854 chars

The court therefore rendered judgment in favor of the
         plaintiff, and this appeal followed.
           On appeal, the defendant claims that the court
         improperly determined that her residential lease with
         the plaintiff had terminated. She contends, as a matter
         of contract interpretation, that the lease automatically
         renewed due to the ambiguous language of paragraph
         10 (A). More specifically, the defendant claims, as she
         did in the first action, that the language of paragraph
         10 (A) of the lease is ‘‘unequivocally ambiguous’’ and
         should therefore be construed against the drafter (the
         plaintiff), thereby locking the plaintiff and the defen-
         dant in a never-ending lease at a fixed monthly rent of
         $1200 unless and until both parties agree to terminate
         the lease. The plaintiff counters that the court correctly
         determined that the lease had terminated because para-
         graph 10 (A) clearly and unambiguously provides the
         plaintiff the right to terminate the lease and that the
         plaintiff did just that in its September 19, 2021 notice
         of lease nonrenewal.9 We agree with the plaintiff.
            We begin by noting that, ‘‘[a]s a contract, a lease
         is subject to the same rules of construction as other
         contracts.’’ Middlesex Mutual Assurance Co. v. Vaszil,
         279 Conn. 28, 35, 900 A.2d 513 (2006). ‘‘In construing
         a written lease . . . three elementary principles must
         be kept constantly in mind: (1) The intention of the
         parties is controlling and must be gathered from the
         language of the lease in the light of the circumstances
            As an alternative ground for affirmance, the plaintiff argues that the
             9

Other Sections in This Document (35)

Full Text