O'Brien Properties, Inc. v. Rodriguez, 215 Conn. 367 (1990)

Citation: O'Brien Properties, Inc. v. Rodriguez, 215 Conn. 367 (1990)
Parent Document: O'Brien Properties, Inc. v. Rodriguez, 215 Conn. 367 (1990)
Jurisdiction: Connecticut (state)
Effective Date: 1990-06-19
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/7894044/obrien-properties-inc-v-rodriguez/ ↗

Full Text

956 chars

I submit that these facts establish that Melendez was the tenant at sufferance, i.e., the “person who came into possession of land rightfully [who thereafter] continues in posession wrongfully after his right thereto has terminated.” Welk v. Bidwell, 136 Conn. 603, 608-609, 73 A.2d 295 (1950). The existence of possession is largely a question of fact dependent on the nature of the property and the surrounding circumstances. “Generally, the inquiry is whether the individual has exercised the dominion and control that owners of like property usually exercise. 35 Am Jur. 2d, Forcible Entry and Detainer § 15; see Hancock v. Finch, 126 Conn. 121, 123, 9 A.2d 811 (1939).” Communiter Break Co. v. Scinto, 196 Conn. 390, 394, 493 A.2d 182 *376(1985). Here, the trial court concluded that Melendez, who thereafter moved out, and Rodriguez were in possession, not Quinones. Thus, Quinones had no greater status than simply that of family member or occupant.

Other Sections in This Document (32)

Full Text