Thomas Breen photo
Legal aid's Amy Eppler-Epstein: Valid notice wouldn't leave tenant guessing.
A judge has ruled that a landlord can cite multiple reasons when seeking to evict tenants — even if the original move-out notice does not clearly specify which tenants are allegedly guilty of which rental contract violations.
State Superior Court Judge John Cirello handed down that decision Tuesday in an eviction case that he heard debated during a hearing in state housing court on the third floor of 121 Elm St. He didn’t rule on this particular eviction yet, but cleared the way for it to proceed.
During the arguments, held in his courtroom last Thursday, Cirello, New Haven Legal Assistance Association attorney Amy Eppler-Epstein and landlord attorney Eliana Schachter raised questions not just about the “hyper-technical” parameters of eviction law, but also about the very purpose of the paperwork that landlords must file when they seek to kick tenants out of homes.
In particular, the debate zeroed in on the form, substance and requisite specificity of the first document that a landlord must file at the start of an eviction process — a so-called “notice to quit.”
In the case in question, Eppler-Epstein argued that the original notice to quit served by an affiliate of local megalandlord Mandy Management against four tenants — two named, two anonymous — at a Quinnipiac Avenue apartment complex was “impermissibly vague.” She argued in a motion to dismiss that it should be struck down and the eviction case should be dismissed because the notice did not make clear which tenants were allegedly guilty of which rental contract violations.
Schachter, meanwhile, argued that landlords are well within their rights to cite multiple reasons when looking to evict a tenant — and that the language attacked by Eppler-Epstein is satisfactory to allow the eviction lawsuit to move forward.
Ultimately, Cirello sided with the landlord.
“Based upon all the written and oral arguments of the parties, the relevant law and the contents of the file,” Cirello wrote on Tuesday, “the court finds that the notice to quit complies with the statute and is not so confusing or ambiguous as to make the notice ineffective. As such, the motion to dismiss is denied.”
Now that the tenants’ motion to dismiss has been denied, the eviction case can proceed to debate, negotiations, and a potential trial concerning the substance of the landlord’s eviction-lawsuit allegations against the tenants.
"Impermissibly Vague"?
The state court building at 121 Elm St., home to New Haven's housing court.
According to the March 25 legal complaint in the case, the Mandy affiliate sought to evict these four tenants for not paying their $1,100 monthly rent in January and February, for staying in their apartment past the expiration of their lease, for never having had any right or privilege to occupy the premises, or for once having had right or privilege to occupy the premises, but that right or privilege has subsequently terminated.
The ensuing legal arguments on the written record and in the courtroom focused not on the substance of the landlord’s accusations of a broken rental agreement, but rather on the way in which the landlord first let the tenants know that they would have to leave their apartment.
In particular, the court hearing focused on the “Notice to Quit” that a Mandy property manager first served on the four tenants on Feb. 17.
That’s the first legal document that a landlord is required to file when initiating an eviction lawsuit. True to its name, a notice to quit is designed to notify tenants that their landlord believes they are in violation of their rental agreement, that the tenants must leave their apartment by a certain date, and that if they stay, the landlord intends to evict them via a formal lawsuit prosecuted in housing court.
The Feb. 17 notice to quit was addressed to the four tenants, including the John and Jane Doe. It ordered them to vacate the apartment by March 23.
And it said that the notice to quit was given “for one or more of the following reasons”: nonpayment of rent, the premises are occupied by one or more people who never had a right or privilege to occupy the apartment, the premises are occupied by one or more people who originally had the right or privilege to occupy the apartment but that right or privilege has terminated, and lapse of time.
That inclusion of the words “one or more” before the list of reasons is what Eppler-Epstein, a New Haven Legal Assistance Association (NHLAA) attorney, keyed in on in a motion to dismiss that she filed May 9 on behalf of the two named tenants in the case.
“A tenant is entitled to sufficient information in a notice to quit to be informed of the reason for the eviction, and what they must do to mount a defense to that notice,” Eppler-Epstein wrote in her motion to dismiss.
“Where a notice to quit merely indicates that ‘one or more’ of the listed reasons are relevant to the action, the rote recitation of multiple statutory reasons does not provide the Defendants with sufficient information about why they are being evicted.”
Instead, she continued, such language is “impermissibly vague” and the notice to quit is therefore “defective and invalid to terminate the tenancy.”
In an attached memorandum in support of that motion to dismiss, Eppler-Epstein elaborated on why such this kind of formal vagary presents such a substantive legal problem.
“In short, the notice to quit must contain enough information so that the tenant is not ‘required to guess the actual reason for the summary process action.’ Bultron, 1992 WL 436240 at *5,” she wrote. “Without a basic understanding of the reason for the eviction, a tenant has neither the ability to negotiate with the landlord prior to commencement of proceedings in court, nor the ability to prepare his defense should a complaint be filed. From the standpoint of both judicial efficiency and due process, the requirement of clarity makes sense, and it has been regularly upheld by courts of this state.”
She urged the judge to dismiss the case because, under such a defective notice to quit, the court has no jurisdiction over the matter.
In a May 19 memorandum of law in opposition to the tenants’ motion to dismiss, Schachter argued that the original notice to quit is indeed in line with relevant state eviction law and judicial precedent.
She wrote that state law §47a-23 clearly allows for landlords to cite multiple, or “alternative,” reasons in a notice to quit. That is: A landlord is well within their rights to say in a notice to quit that a tenant has to leave because of both nonpayment of rent and never had a right or privilege, even if those two reasons conflict with each other. It is then the landlord’s legal burden to prove at least one of those reasons in order to succeed in winning the eviction court case.
“A landlord should not be deprived of subject matter jurisdiction because of ‘hyper technical dissection of the wording of the notices he has sent,’ ” she continued, quoting a 1987 state court decision in a case called Jefferson Garden Associates v. Greene.
“The statute itself allows for the notice’s language to start in singular language and then list multiple reasons without listing them as alternative grounds; ‘for the following reason (here insert the reason or reasons for the notice to quit possession…)’ C.G.S. §47a-23(b) (emphasis added).”
Therefore, Schachter, concluded, the notice to quit in this case is sufficiently specific, and the motion to dismiss should be denied.
"And" / "Or"?
Thomas Breen file photo
Judge Cirello.
That’s where the two attorneys picked up the case on Thursday during oral arguments before Judge Cirello.
Neither landlord nor tenant appeared in person in the courtroom for the hearing. The tenant and landlord legal advocates presented the arguments before the judge over whether or not the foundational paperwork in the case — the Feb. 17 notice to quit — was properly put together or not, and therefore whether or not the case should be dismissed.
Eppler-Epstein argued that the notice to quit was deficient, and the case should therefore be thrown out.
The notice to quit is addressed to four draft defendants and cites four different reasons for why they had to vacate the apartment. But, she said, her two named clients could not determine “which of these four reasons might apply to them.”
Because of the inclusion of the language “one or more” at the top of the notice.
“It’s impermissibly vague if it leaves the tenant guessing” which reason or reasons the landlord is citing when ordering them out, Eppler-Epstein continued.
But isn’t a landlord legally allowed to cite alternative reasons when seeking to evict a tenant? Cirello countered.
“I can see scenarios where facts are presented to the court, and where it turns out that” one legal reason doesn’t work, and so a landlord and their attorney then moves on to another legal reason to say if that will stick. That’s all legally permissible, he said.
While that is true, Eppler-Epstein said, “the purpose of a notice to quit is not to throw” everything at a tenant. It’s to clearly state which reasons — one or multiple — a landlord is citing when legally justifying their order that a tenant must leave, in advance of filing a formal eviction lawsuit in court.
The case law is clear, she continued. “Landlords can bring alternative reasons.” The problem here is that “they’re throwing it all out there” without letting the tenants clearly know what they’re being accused of.
“In this case, the tenant has no clue” which eviction-justifying reasons have specifically been leveled at them. Is it just nonpayment of rent? Or just lapse of time? Or no right or privilege? Or all of the above? “I have no way to know.”
The very purpose of a notice to quit “is to give notice,” she concluded. And this notice to quit does not do a legally sufficient job of that.
Cirello then turned to Schachter.
Schachter, too, argued that the caselaw is clear for her side. A landlord should not be deprived of subject matter jurisdiction in an eviction case simply “because of hyper technical dissection” of the wording of a notice to quit.
The reason behind using the words “one or more” in the notice to quit is “to allow for meaningful alternatives” for pursuing the eviction, which is well within the landlord’s legal right.
She accused Eppler-Epstein of making a “circular argument” that tries to skirt the clear legality of landlords including multiple reasons, even if they conflict, in a valid notice to quit.
Eppler-Epstein pushed back. The whole purpose of a notice to quit is to give the tenant a reason as to “why they’re being evicted,” she said. This notice to quit does not succeed in doing that.
Instead of writing “one or more,” Cirello asked Eppler-Epstein, what does the tenant’s attorney think the landlord should have written in that part of the notice to quit?
“I think a notice to quit should state the reasons and who they apply to,” Eppler-Epstein replied.
“This notice to quit is sufficient,” Schachter countered. It does state all of the reasons leveled against the defendant, even with the use of the word “or” rather than “and.” It’s incumbent upon the tenants to “launch a defense on all of the reasons,” she said.
Cirello declined to issue a ruling on this case from the bench on Thursday. He promised to review the arguments and relevant statutes and caselaw, and then get the two sides his decision on the motion to dismiss shortly.
Judge: Eviction Case Can Proceed
In the five-page decision that Cirello published on Tuesday, he recapped the two sides’ legal arguments and ultimately sided with the landlord’s attorney’s take.
Before that, he reviewed exactly what the purpose and legal parameters of a valid notice to quit are.
Some of the quotes that Cirello pulled from previous judicial decisions included:
• “As a condition precedent to a summary process action, proper notice to quit is a jurisdictional necessity.” Lampasona v. Jacobs, 209 Conn. 724, 729 – 29, cert. denied, 492 U.S. 919, 109 Ct. 3244, 106 L. Ed. 2d 590 (1989).
• “Service of a notice to quit possession is typically a landlord’s unequivocal act notifying the tenant of termination of the lease.” Young. v Vlahos, 103 Conn. App. 470, 480 (2007), cert. denied 285 Conn. 913 (2008).
• “A notice to quit must convey a clear intention to the tenant that [his/her] lease has been terminated.” Connecticut Constitution Associates, LLC. v. DiMauro, Superior Court, judicial district of Hartford, Docket No. HDSP 123245 (March 12, 2004, Dos Santos, J.)
• A notice to quit may serve several functions: (1) as an unequivocal manifestation by the lessor that [he or she] terminates the rental agreement … (2) as an indication that any holding over by the tenant after the expiration of the monthly tenancy will not be acquiesced in by the lessor …; and (3) as compliance with the statutory requirement that the period of eight [now three] days pass between the termination of the agreement and the bringing of a summary process action.” Bridgeport v. Barbour-Daniel Electronics, Inc., 16 Conn. App. 574, 585 n.10 (1988). .… (Pursuant to Executive Order 12D extended by 14A notice to quits for lapse of time, as in this case, or nonpayment of rent or right or privilege terminated have been extended to 30 days.)”
The tenant’s lawyer argues that the phrase “one or more of the following reasons” made the notice to quit “unclear and confusing,” Cirello concluded. “Especially because the reasons of lapse of time and nonpayment require proof of an agreement while right or privilege — terminated and right or privilege — never had require proof of no agreement between the parties.”
The landlord’s lawyer then argues that the statute regarding the language in a notice to quit “allows a landlord to list multiple reasons for the eviction.” And, depending on the evidence presented at trial, the landlord’s lawyer “the court may or may not find an agreement existed between the parties and they want to preserve their right to plead in the alternative.”
All of that taken into account, the judge concluded, the notice to quit in this case is valid and the eviction case can proceed.
Other recent stories about New Haven eviction cases working their way through housing court so far in 2022.
• 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
Please, please appeal this faulty ruling, Ms. Eppler-Epstein! Otherwise, Notices To Quit will simply attach a photocopy of the statutory reasons! And the law that the writ must be based on the same Notice To Quit will also be affected. Error, error, error!