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
767 charsWe conclude that the parties failed to renew the lease for an additional five year term in a proper manner. When a lease term has expired and, thereafter, the lessee remains in possession and pays increased rent in *97accordance with a renewal option, such payment does not demonstrate that the lessee has exercised its option to renew the lease. David A. Altschuler Trust v. Blanchette, 33 Conn. App. 570, 573, cert. denied, 229 Conn. 906, 640 A.2d 117 (1994). The actions of the parties demonstrate that they failed to execute a new written lease as required by the clear and unambiguous language of the lease and that no meeting of the minds occurred evidencing an agreement to renew the lease. The judgment is affirmed. In this opinion the other judges concurred.