Zitomer v. Palmer, 446 A.2d 1084 (1982)
- Citation
- Zitomer v. Palmer, 446 A.2d 1084 (1982)
- Parent Document
- Zitomer v. Palmer, 446 A.2d 1084 (1982)
- Jurisdiction
- Connecticut (state)
- Effective Date
- 1982-04-16
Other Sections in This Document (41)
- Zitomer v. Palmer, 446 A.2d 1084 (1982)
- Zitomer v. Palmer, 446 A.2d 1084 (1982)
- Zitomer v. Palmer, 446 A.2d 1084 (1982)
- Zitomer v. Palmer, 446 A.2d 1084 (1982)
- Zitomer v. Palmer, 446 A.2d 1084 (1982)
- Zitomer v. Palmer, 446 A.2d 1084 (1982)
- Zitomer v. Palmer, 446 A.2d 1084 (1982)
- Zitomer v. Palmer, 446 A.2d 1084 (1982)
- Zitomer v. Palmer, 446 A.2d 1084 (1982)
- Zitomer v. Palmer, 446 A.2d 1084 (1982)
- Zitomer v. Palmer, 446 A.2d 1084 (1982)
- Zitomer v. Palmer, 446 A.2d 1084 (1982)
- Zitomer v. Palmer, 446 A.2d 1084 (1982)
- Zitomer v. Palmer, 446 A.2d 1084 (1982)
- Zitomer v. Palmer, 446 A.2d 1084 (1982)
- Zitomer v. Palmer, 446 A.2d 1084 (1982)
- Zitomer v. Palmer, 446 A.2d 1084 (1982)
- Zitomer v. Palmer, 446 A.2d 1084 (1982)
- Zitomer v. Palmer, 446 A.2d 1084 (1982)
- Zitomer v. Palmer, 446 A.2d 1084 (1982)
- Zitomer v. Palmer, 446 A.2d 1084 (1982)
- Zitomer v. Palmer, 446 A.2d 1084 (1982)
- Zitomer v. Palmer, 446 A.2d 1084 (1982)
- Zitomer v. Palmer, 446 A.2d 1084 (1982)
- Zitomer v. Palmer, 446 A.2d 1084 (1982)
- Zitomer v. Palmer, 446 A.2d 1084 (1982)
- Zitomer v. Palmer, 446 A.2d 1084 (1982)
- Zitomer v. Palmer, 446 A.2d 1084 (1982)
- Zitomer v. Palmer, 446 A.2d 1084 (1982)
- Zitomer v. Palmer, 446 A.2d 1084 (1982)
- Zitomer v. Palmer, 446 A.2d 1084 (1982)
- Zitomer v. Palmer, 446 A.2d 1084 (1982)
- Zitomer v. Palmer, 446 A.2d 1084 (1982)
- Zitomer v. Palmer, 446 A.2d 1084 (1982)
- Zitomer v. Palmer, 446 A.2d 1084 (1982)
- Zitomer v. Palmer, 446 A.2d 1084 (1982)
- Zitomer v. Palmer, 446 A.2d 1084 (1982)
- Zitomer v. Palmer, 446 A.2d 1084 (1982)
- Zitomer v. Palmer, 446 A.2d 1084 (1982)
- Zitomer v. Palmer, 446 A.2d 1084 (1982)
- Zitomer v. Palmer, 446 A.2d 1084 (1982)
Full Text
564 charsThe defendants’ first contention is that the notice to quit failed to comply with statutory standards and therefore was ineffective. The basis for this claim is the statement added by the plaintiff to a standard form of notice to quit, which read: “Any payments tendered after service of the notice to quit will be accepted for reimbursement of costs and attorneys’ fees and for use and occupancy only with full reservation of rights to continue with the eviction action.” The defendants make no charge that the notice to quit violates General Statutes § 47a-23; 1