Opinion
No. NHSP-08-098865
September 8, 2009
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
By Complaint dated August 21, 2009, plaintiffs, two of the three owners of the premises, seek to evict defendant based on the termination of his right or privilege to occupy the premises. Trial was held before the court on September 8, 2009. The plaintiffs, an uncle and a nephew, each inherited a one-third interest in the premises from their mother and grandmother, respectively. The remaining interest in the premises was willed to their sister and mother, respectively, who is not a plaintiff in this matter. In fact, she lives is in the premises with the defendant and wants him to remain.
There is a split of authority in the Superior Court regarding whether all persons holding an ownership interest must bring an eviction action. Toler v. Grant, Judicial District of Hartford — Housing Session, Docket No. HDSP 144942 (March 31, 2008, Wiese, J.). One school of thought holds that because the language contained in § 47a-23 of the Connecticut General Statutes requires "the owner" rather than "an owner" or "any owner" to serve a notice to quit, "unanimity of interest" among all owners is required in order to bring a valid eviction action. Sekeret v. Zdanis, Superior Court, Geographical Area No. 18 at Bantam — Housing Session, No. DV 18-7692 (April 19, 2001, Matasavage, J.) Other courts have found the opposite; that the statutory language allows any owner to evict a tenant. Chimblo v. Hutter, Superior Court, Complex Litigation Docket at Waterbury, Docket No. X01-CV 99-0162957 (March 29, 1999, Hodgson, J.).
In finding that plaintiffs' eviction action must fail due to the absence of the third owner as a party plaintiff, this court finds that the clear language of the statute requires unanimity of ownership interest. If the legislature wishes to permit any owner of a piece of property to maintain an eviction action, it can so provide by changing the word in the statute from "the" to "an" or "any." Until the legislature enacts such a change, this court finds that entire ownership of the premises must be represented as plaintiffs in order to maintain an eviction action.
The court assumes that this is most frequently an issue in cases such as this, where shared family ownership of property leads to differing views about who may reside in the premises. While requiring all owners to bring an eviction action may allow the holder of a minority share of the property to permit a tenant to stay in perpetuity against the wishes of the holders of the majority interest, there are other legal avenues, such as a partition action, available to remedy the situation. To hold otherwise and allow any owner, including the holder of a minority interest, to maintain an eviction action over the objections of the majority owners, would invite chaos.
Judgment shall enter in favor of defendant.