Section 47a-23
- Citation
- Section 47a-23
- Parent Document
- Pollansky v. Pollansky, 144 Conn. App. 188 (2013)
- Jurisdiction
- Connecticut (state)
- Effective Date
- 2013-07-16
Other Sections in This Document (45)
- Pollansky v. Pollansky, 144 Conn. App. 188 (2013)
- Pollansky v. Pollansky, 144 Conn. App. 188 (2013)
- Pollansky v. Pollansky, 144 Conn. App. 188 (2013)
- Pollansky v. Pollansky, 144 Conn. App. 188 (2013)
- Pollansky v. Pollansky, 144 Conn. App. 188 (2013)
- Pollansky v. Pollansky, 144 Conn. App. 188 (2013)
- Pollansky v. Pollansky, 144 Conn. App. 188 (2013)
- Pollansky v. Pollansky, 144 Conn. App. 188 (2013)
- Pollansky v. Pollansky, 144 Conn. App. 188 (2013)
- Pollansky v. Pollansky, 144 Conn. App. 188 (2013)
- Section 47a-23
- Section 47a-23
- Section 47a-23
- Section 47a-23
- Section 47a-23
- Section 47a-23
- Section 47a-23
- Section 47a-23
- Section 47a-23
- Section 47a-23
- Section 47a-23
- Section 47a-23
- Section 47a-23
- Section 47a-23
- Section 47a-23
- Section 47a-23
- Section 47a-23
- Section 47a-23
- Section 47a-23
- Section 47a-23
- Section 47a-23
- Section 47a-23
- Section 47a-23
- Section 47a-23
- Section 47a-23
- Section 47a-23
- Section 47a-23
- Section 47a-23
- Section 47a-23
- Section 47a-23
- Section 47a-23
- Section 47a-23
- Section 47a-23
- Section 47a-23
- Section 47a-23
Full Text
591 charsThe defendants argue that the use of the present perfect tense in the phrase “has terminated” in § 47a-23 (a) (3) means that, in order for the notice to quit to *193be valid, the right or privilege to occupy must terminate at some point prior to the delivery of the notice to quit and that the notice to quit cannot itself constitute the termination of the right or privilege to occupy. The defendants seem to argue that because the complaint claims that the notice to quit itself terminated the right or privilege, it alleges a legal impossibility and thus does not state a cause of action.