Thomas Breen file photo
Attorney Schachter: "No way a reasonable tenant would conclude the eviction's over."
A Hill landlord won a judge’s permission to proceed with an eviction case despite having written what a tenant’s lawyer argued was a confusing letter.
State Superior Court Judge Walter Spader, Jr. issued that decision Thursday after hearing arguments on a motion to dismiss in an eviction case that dates back to December.
The courtroom debate and the judge’s subsequent order got at the issue of “equivocation” — that is, whether or not a landlord unduly muddled the legal waters of an existing eviction case by leading a tenant to believe their lease had been reinstated, even though a previous eviction notice had formally ended that same landlord-tenant rental agreement.
The original lawsuit was filed on Dec. 1 by a trustee of the St. George Living Trust, which at the time owned the eight-unit apartment building at 516 Columbus Ave. in the Hill.
The then-landlord alleged that the the tenant in question was two months behind on rent and therefore had to move out. The tenant filed a response disagreeing with the landlord’s claims, but not detailing the reasons behind her disagreement.
On Jan. 3 of this year, ABCD Homes DE LLC, an affiliate of the local megalandlord Mandy Management, bought the Columbus Avenue rental property for $666,668 and, the court records show, sought in the ensuing months to move forward with the eviction lawsuit.
The tenant, with the help of New Haven Legal Assistance Association (NHLAA) attorney Tyrese Ford, subsequently moved to have the suit thrown out because of an action the new landlord took soon after buying the property.
Laura Glesby photo
Tyrese Ford (far right) with legal aid housing attorney colleagues in December.
Ford detailed that action — and its implications on the eviction case in question — in an April 21 motion to dismiss.
The previous landlord served the tenant with a notice to quit on Nov. 22, 2022, “thereby terminating the lease agreement” by starting the formal court eviction process. But the new landlord — and current lawsuit plaintiff — “equivocated” that notice to quit with a Jan. 13, 2023 letter sent to all of the tenants at 516 Columbus.
The top half of the Jan. 13 Mandy Management letter in question.
That letter introduced ABCD Homes DE LLC as the new owner of the property, and Mandy Management as the new property manager. It included contact information for the new property manager as well as instructions on how to pay rent and submit maintenance requests.
It also stated: “Please note that your lease agreement has not changed, and the terms will continue to be upheld as usual until a new lease is requested by us.”
This language posed a fatal legal problem for the ongoing eviction lawsuit against his client, Ford wrote, because it appeared to reinstate a lease that the previous notice to quit served by the previous landlord in late November had formally ended.
Case law establishes the standard for equivocation in an eviction case as communication that would create “a reasonable doubt in the mind of a reasonable tenant,” he said, quoting a 2015 judicial precedent. “Here, Plaintiff’s actions after the service of the Notice to Quit could have created reasonable doubt in the mind of a reasonable tenant as to whether the lease, in fact, remained terminated.”
Therefore, Ford concluded, the lawsuit — started by one landlord, continued by another, with a potentially confusing letter in between — should be dismissed.
121 Elm St., home to New Haven's housing court.
In a court-filed opposition to the motion to dismiss on Wednesday, landlord-hired attorney Eliana Schachter pushed back on Ford’s assertion of equivocation.
“There were no written or oral communications between the new Plaintiff and Defendant other than this letter,” Schachter wrote. “There were no settlement negotiations prior to letter being sent. The letter was not addressed to the Defendants by name, but to the residents of eight unit. This letter, not addressed directly to the defendants and with no other communication from the Plaintiff, would not cause a reasonable tenant to conclude that they are let off the hook for not paying rent — the cause of the eviction.”
Yes, she continued, the January letter from Mandy Management does state “your lease has not changed.” But that doesn’t imply that the tenant’s previous eviction case was suddenly moot.
“No reasonable tenant would conclude from the receipt of this letter, not addressed directly to the tenant but to the residents of eight units, that this is anything other than a letter providing notice in change of management,” Schachter concluded. “No reasonable tenant would conclude that this is a letter cancelling the eviction, equivocating the notice to quit, and establishing a tenancy.”
Judge: "I Think This Letter Is Fine"
Thomas Breen photo
Judge Spader: Equivocation "is one of the toughest issues in housing" court.
In New Haven’s third-floor housing court at 121 Elm St. Thursday morning, Ford and Schachter reprised those arguments as they pushed for and against the motion to dismiss before Judge Spader.
Ford stressed that the Jan. 13 letter from Mandy Management “essentially created confusion” as to whether or not the tenant’s lease was back in effect after the Nov. 22 notice to quit said otherwise.
Schacter argued that the letter was addressed to residents of all eight units at the Columbus Avenue property, not just the defendant in this eviction case. Plus, this is the only communication that the tenant is claiming caused equivocation. “All there is is one letter that went to eight units.”
But the tenant in question is in one of those units, Spader pointed out, even if the letter was not addressed directly to her by name.
Has she paid rent in the intervening months since this January letter from the new landlord and property manager? the judge asked.
“As far as I know, absolutely not,” Schachter replied.
Based on this letter alone, she argued, “there’s no way a reasonable tenant would conclude the eviction’s over and everything’s back to normal.”
Ford replied that the standard for equivocation is an “objective one,” based on the actions of the parties themselves rather than just intentions. And, plainly enough, the January letter “actually states that the lease agreement has not changed.”
Lease is a specific legal term, he said. So is “rent.” This letter did not use the term “use and occupancy” when describing what the tenant needed to pay in lieu of rent as the eviction case moved through court. Instead, it used “rent.”
Ford added that this whole issue could have been avoided if the landlord and property manager had added one paragraph to the end of the letter stating that if you are a tenant undergoing an eviction, that eviction remains pending. “That’s all the landlord had to do.” But they didn’t do it, and objectively caused confusion.
“This is one of the toughest issues in housing” court, Spader said in reference to determining “equivocation post-notice to quit.”
A landlord could send one letter, or make “one mistake,” and, without intending to do so, could legally equivocate and upend an eviction case. “Most courts struggle with” where to draw the line.
“I don’t think this one letter” could cause a reasonable tenant to have reasonable doubt about what’s going on. “I think this letter is fine.”
With that, he rejected the tenant’s motion to dismiss, and then continued the nonpayment case for a week, at which time the parties will discuss and argue the underlying causes of the eviction lawsuit itself.
After the hearing, Ford said he respects the judge’s decision, even as he still thinks “reasonable minds can disagree” on what specific, objective actions count as equivocation.
“Landlords have to be careful with what they say, because a single statement can make the tenant stop their search for a new unit,” he said.
See below for other recent stories about New Haven evictions:
• Eviction Notice Served — By Whom, Exactly?
• Investor Tries Evictions First, Repairs Later
• Eviction Fallout Follows Ex-Newhallville Family
• Judge Rejects Newhallville Eviction
• Landlord’s Court No-Show Debated In Eviction
• Lenox Landlord Prevents Sheffield Eviction
• Senior Dodges 50-Cent Eviction
• Landlord Prevails After Eviction-Paper Delivery Debate
• Sunset Ridge Becomes Eviction Central
• Eviction OK’d After Restaurant Shutters
• Eviction OK’d After“Lapse,” Rent Debate
• Mandy Leads Pack In Eviction Filings
• Eviction“Answers” Reveal Renters’ Struggles
• Eviction Suit Caps Tenant’s Tough Run
• Investor Skips Hello, Starts Evictions
• Eviction Deal Drops $1 Ruling Appeal
• Judge’s $1 Award Tests Eviction Rule
• Court Case Q: Which“Nuisances” Merit Eviction?
• “Or” Evictions OK’d
• Fair Rent: Dog’ll Cost You $150
• Rent Trumps Repairs In Elliot Street Eviction
• Though Sympathetic, Judge Blocks Eviction
• Family Feuds Fill Eviction Court
• Rent Help Winds Down. What’s Next?
• Eviction Withdrawn After Rent Catch-up
• Hill Landlord Prevails In“Lapse” Eviction
• Landlord Thwarted 2nd Time On Eviction
• Church Evicting Parishioner
• Hard-Luck Tenant Hustles To Stay Put
• Eviction Of Hospitalized Tenant, 74, Upheld
•Judge Pauses Eviction Amid Rent-Relief Qs
• Amid Rise In“Lapse-of-Time” Evictions, Tenant Wins 3‑Month Stay
• Leaky Ceiling, Rent Dispute Spark Eviction Case
“Landlords have to be careful with what they say, because a single statement can make the tenant stop their search for a new unit,” he said. " But thenant can do as they please and pay as they please and move as they please. How is this fair in adjudicating this type of case?