Opinion
No. 053590
March 18, 2010
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
This summary process action was brought by the plaintiff to recover possession of the premises at 114 Greene Street, 2nd Floor, Bristol, Connecticut based upon the claim in the notice to quit and complaint that the defendant's tenancy has expired by lapse of time. At a hearing on various motions, the defendant submitted evidence of a notice to quit for nonpayment of rent dated November 25, 2009 (Defendant's Exhibit A) which the parties stipulate was served on the defendant prior to the December 21, 2009 notice to quit on which this action is based. The court continued the matter for one week for the parties to provide evidence and argument on the issue of whether the court has subject matter jurisdiction over the matter. The court conducted a hearing on March 18, 2010. The plaintiff was represented by counsel. The defendant was self-represented. The plaintiff concedes that the law is clear that the service of a valid notice to quit has the effect of terminating a rental agreement. Since an action brought for lapse of time requires a landlord to prove the existence of an agreement, the service of the first notice to quit, if valid, would terminate any existing rental agreement and therefore render the notice to quit on which the present action is based invalid and deprive the court of subject matter jurisdiction.
The plaintiff argues that the plaintiff's failure to comply with her statutory obligation under Connecticut General Statutes Section 47a-6 to notify the defendant that the plaintiff had purchased the premises renders the first notice to quit invalid and of no effect.
Connecticut General Statutes Section 47a-6 requires a successor landlord to notify a tenant of the name and address of the person authorized to manage the premises receive notices, demands and service of process. The statute also requires that the information be kept current. Subsection (b) which sets forth the effect of the landlord's failure to comply with the statute, merely provides that the successor landlord is deemed to have appointed the original landlord as its agent for purposes of receiving notices, demands and service of process. There is no other penalty or consequence set forth in the statute.
The court can find no support for the plaintiff's claim based upon the plain language of Connecticut General Statutes Section 47a-6.
If the court were to accept the plaintiff's argument that the failure of a landlord to comply with the provisions of § 47a-6 renders any notice to quit served the non-compliance invalid, it would follow that any notice to quit served while a landlord was not in compliance with its statutory responsibilities under § 47a-7 would also be invalid. This simply is not the law.
The parties stipulate that the first notice to quit was properly served and not subsequently rescinded by the plaintiff. The court finds that the service of the first notice to quit had the effect of terminating any existing agreement. The notice to quit was served and the complaint was brought for lapse of time which requires the existence of an agreement. The court finds that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the matter.
Accordingly, the action is dismissed.