Warner Associates v. Logan, 50 Conn. App. 90 (1998)
- Citation
- Warner Associates v. Logan, 50 Conn. App. 90 (1998)
- Parent Document
- Warner Associates v. Logan, 50 Conn. App. 90 (1998)
- Jurisdiction
- Connecticut (state)
- Effective Date
- 1998-08-25
Other Sections in This Document (22)
- Warner Associates v. Logan, 50 Conn. App. 90 (1998)
- Warner Associates v. Logan, 50 Conn. App. 90 (1998)
- Warner Associates v. Logan, 50 Conn. App. 90 (1998)
- Warner Associates v. Logan, 50 Conn. App. 90 (1998)
- Warner Associates v. Logan, 50 Conn. App. 90 (1998)
- Warner Associates v. Logan, 50 Conn. App. 90 (1998)
- Warner Associates v. Logan, 50 Conn. App. 90 (1998)
- Warner Associates v. Logan, 50 Conn. App. 90 (1998)
- Warner Associates v. Logan, 50 Conn. App. 90 (1998)
- Warner Associates v. Logan, 50 Conn. App. 90 (1998)
- Warner Associates v. Logan, 50 Conn. App. 90 (1998)
- Warner Associates v. Logan, 50 Conn. App. 90 (1998)
- Warner Associates v. Logan, 50 Conn. App. 90 (1998)
- Warner Associates v. Logan, 50 Conn. App. 90 (1998)
- Warner Associates v. Logan, 50 Conn. App. 90 (1998)
- Warner Associates v. Logan, 50 Conn. App. 90 (1998)
- Warner Associates v. Logan, 50 Conn. App. 90 (1998)
- Warner Associates v. Logan, 50 Conn. App. 90 (1998)
- Warner Associates v. Logan, 50 Conn. App. 90 (1998)
- Warner Associates v. Logan, 50 Conn. App. 90 (1998)
- Warner Associates v. Logan, 50 Conn. App. 90 (1998)
- Warner Associates v. Logan, 50 Conn. App. 90 (1998)
Full Text
1,141 charsIn May, 1994, there was an interruption in the electrical service to the garage, which the defendants claimed arose from the installation of a fence by the plaintiff in 1992. The defendants hired an electrician to provide a temporary hookup for electrical service. On May 6, 1994, the defendants sent a letter by certified mail to the plaintiff referring to the electrical problem and the need for repair. On May 9, 1994, the plaintiff sent to *93the defendants a notice of eviction stating that they were to vacate within thirty days because they failed (1) to sign the proposed lease, thereby making them month-to-month tenants, (2) to comply with the request for two months security, (3) to clean up the mess surrounding the building, (4) to remove a sign, and (5) to remove plants and tables from in front of the garage and to reduce the number of garbage cans from six to two. On May 10, 1994, the defendants responded by letter, denying any wrongdoing. On May 20, 1994, the plaintiff responded to the May 10 letter indicating that the notice of eviction was withdrawn, and declaring that the defendants were not month-to-month tenants.