Opinion
No. 10-23174
July 18, 2007
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
Plaintiff landlord Bates Woods Apartments d/b/a New London Housing Authority brings this summary process action by Complaint dated April 25, 2007 alleging serious nuisance against defendant tenants Roberta Whitehead-Swain and Max Whitehead, who are mother and son. Plaintiff claims that defendant Max Whitehead's arrest on weapons-related charges and defendant Roberta Whitehead-Swain's outbursts and threats directed at other tenants constitute serious nuisance.
At trial, plaintiff produced a Lease Agreement and made reference to its terms relating to peaceful enjoyment as they relate to defendants' behavior. However, the Notice to Quit and the Complaint cite only serious nuisance as a basis for this action and the Court is thus constrained.
"In a summary process action based on serious nuisance, the landlord must prove, by a fair preponderance of the evidence, all of the elements of the case. The essential elements are: (1) On or about a certain date, the landlord and the tenant entered into an oral or written lease/rental agreement for a weekly/monthly/yearly term for use and occupancy of a certain premises; (2) The tenant agreed to pay an agreed upon rent by a certain date; (3) The tenant took possession of the premises pursuant to the lease; (4) The tenant's conduct constituted a serious nuisance, as defined by law; (5) The landlord caused a proper Notice to Quit Possession to be served on the tenant to vacate the premises or before a certain termination date, as required by law; and (6) Although the time given in the Notice to Quit has passed, the tenant remains in possession of the premises." Cardinal Realty Investors v. Bernasconi, 2006 Ct.Sup. 5030 (April 13, 2007, Bentivenga, J.).
At trial of this matter, plaintiff proved the following elements of its case: 1) That a lease existed between the parties; 2) That there was an agreed-upon rent; 3) That defendants took possession of the premises; 4) That a proper Notice to Quit was served on defendants; and 5) That tenants remained in possession of the premises after the date set forth in the Notice to Quit. This leaves the issue of whether each defendant's individual behavior rose to the level of serious nuisance.
Plaintiff bears a heavy burden in this matter: "Serious nuisance is more than a nuisance. It is more than a material noncompliance with the tenant's duties . . ." Quiles v. Martinez, 1995 Ct.Sup. 1069, 15 Conn. L. Rptr. 114 (June 30, 1995, Tierney, J.). Courts found serious nuisance where squalid conditions raised health concerns causing an immediate and serious danger to other tenants, Cardinal Realty Investors v. Bernasconi, 2006 Ct.Sup. 5030 (April 13, 2007, Bentivegna, J.), and in instances where the tenant at issue committed acts of serious physical violence, Housing Authority v. Morrow, 1995 Ct.Sup. 5037 (May 16, 1995, Tierney, J.); Hartford East Apartments v. Easton, 2005 Ct.Sup. 12391 (September 12, 2005, Dos Santos, J.). However, a tenant's repeated and intentional breaking of a door did not rise to the level of serious nuisance, Quiles, supra, nor did a tenant's breeding of pit bulls in the demised premises. Kensington Square II Limited Partnership v. Perez, 1995 Ct.Sup. 11300, 15 Conn. L. Rptr. 384 (October 17, 1995, Jones, J.).
Serious Nuisance Claim against Max Whitehead
Plaintiff presented evidence and testimony concerning the December 15, 2006 arrest of Max Whitehead on a number of charges, including weapons possession, all of which stemmed from a single event that took place off-premises. Mr. Whitehead testified that these charges were being disposed of through a pretrial diversionary program that would leave him without a record, a claim that plaintiffs did not refute.
Plaintiff claims that Max Whitehead's arrest constitutes serious nuisance because he presents an "immediate and serious danger to the safety of other tenants or the landlord" as required by C.G.S. Section 47a-15(C). This contention is not supported by the facts as presented at trial. Assuming that the alleged behavior did, in fact, occur, it was a single off-premises occurrence, however serious, that cannot convincingly be said to constitute an immediate and serious danger to the safety of other tenants in the complex or the landlord.
Serious Nuisance Claim against Roberta Whitehead-Swain
Plaintiff presented several witnesses, including Ms. Whitehead-Swain's sister, her niece, a neighbor, the property manager and a police officer, all of whom testified that Ms. Whitehead-Swain exhibited verbally abusive behavior on numerous occasions, particularly addressed at her sister Rita Whitehead and her niece Cabernet Queenan, both tenants of the same housing complex. In addition, plaintiff produced an Application for Relief from Abuse filed by Ms. Queenan against Ms. Whitehead-Swain and a number of documentary exhibits buttressing plaintiffs claim that the premises at issue are far from a peaceful place. Plaintiff claims that Ms. Whitehead-Swain's behavior constitutes serious nuisance because she inflicted "bodily harm on another tenant or the landlord or threatened to inflict such harm with the present ability to effect the harm and under circumstances that would lead a reasonable person to believe that such a threat will be carried out" as required by C.G.S. Section 47a-15(C).
Plaintiff's evidence indicated that the police were called to the premises on the following dates: 8/24/05, 1/15/06, 3/19/06, 4/24/06, 8/6/06, 11/11/06, and 4/24/07.
Roberta Whitehead-Swain's behavior falls short of serious nuisance. While the Court feels great sympathy for the targets of her wrath and the other tenants in the complex, the law provides them with avenues of relief, both criminal and civil, that they have shown the ability and inclination to use. In those cases in which disputes between tenants gave rise to findings of serious nuisance, the behavior was far more egregious than that at issue here. In Housing Authority v. Morrow, supra, the court held that "the continued tenancy of a 62 year-old who while suffering from psychotic disorders displays mace and a butcher knife in an elderly housing project while uttering direct threats against a specified tenant" that culminated in a physical altercation rose to the level of serious nuisance. In Hartford East Apartments v. Easton, supra, serious nuisance was found where the elderly and mentally handicapped residents of a housing complex were found to be in immediate and serious danger from a tenant who stabbed a health care worker on the premises.
Plaintiff's evidence in this matter indicated that while Mrs. Whitehead's behavior was abusive and sometimes obscene, there was no indication that it placed anyone in immediate and serious danger, as required by statute.
Conclusion
Plaintiff failed to carry its burden of proving that the behavior of Max Whitehead or Roberta Whitehead-Swain constituted serious nuisance. Judgment for defendants.