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
1,103 charsThe trial court determined that the defendants attempted to renew the lease for the additional five year term, but that their efforts were unsuccessful. After the defendants expressed their desire to renew the lease, the plaintiff sent the defendants a new proposed lease that required two months security deposit. The original lease did not require a security deposit. In addition, the plaintiff sent the defendants a notice of eviction. The trial court stated that “[t]he result of the landlord’s action in sending the notice of eviction was the rejection of the tenants’ effort to renew the lease. Once rejected, the tenants made no additional effort to renew the lease after the landlord withdrew the notice of eviction. Since the tenants did not exercise a renewal option they were, in fact, month-to-month tenants.” In addition, the trial court concluded that “there is no meeting of the minds, that there was no renewal of the lease, that the tenants were month-to-month tenants. That when the tenants vacated in September, 1994, they were no longer liable to pay rent for any months thereafter.”