Opinion
No. CV 08 4007886
November 24, 2010
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
This is a matter that was transferred from Small Claims Court into the Superior Court Docket involving a rental security deposit that the plaintiff tenant is claiming from the defendant landlord. After trial in which the plaintiff was self-represented and the defendant represented by counsel, the court makes certain findings based on the more probative evidence submitted.
The plaintiff entered into a series of annual leases with the defendant for a certain residential condominium unit owned by the defendant in New Milford, Connecticut. The third lease (Exhibit #19) running from April of 2008 through March of 2009 had a provision allowing the plaintiff to terminate the lease with timely notice to the landlord, allowing her to vacate the said premises by June 30, 2008. The defendant was aware that the plaintiff intended to buy a separate residential home and would require a reasonable time to purchase such premises and to vacate subject premises. The lease clearly states that the notification to exercise the early termination option under Paragraph 3 of the lease is to be done by June 1, 2008 or the full term of the lease remains in force. The plaintiff notified the defendant by e-mail on June 12, 2008, (Exhibit 20) seeking an extension of the option. The defendant's response indicates that he was intending to strictly enforce and interpret the language in the lease.
The Court finds that such an interpretation is unreasonable under the circumstances and in light of the fact that the defendant knew of the tenant's intention and purposes in trying to exercise the early termination option. The Court relies on a more liberal interpretation of that term of the lease and applicable law C.G.S. § 47a-11 et seq. The Court finds that the plaintiff is entitled to the return of some portion of her security deposit as adjusted by the defendant's counterclaim for certain expenses incurred and some portion of one month's rent claimed by the defendant. The security deposit with statutory interest amounts to $1,683.31. Wareck v. Conn. Chair Car Co. N.H.-557, 1991 WL 135 116 [ 4 Conn. L. Rptr. 653] (1991); Slaughter v. McFarlane, N.H.-583, 1992 WL 316 453 (1992).
The Court further finds that the defendant has established that certain expenses were incurred for extra cleaning and repairs that would not be attributed to normal wear and tear of the premises and would not include certain mechanical or capital expenses that are not the obligation of the tenant, but remain with the landlord. Therefore, the Court finds for the plaintiff in said amount of the security deposit, adjusted by certain amounts found to be set-offs through the counterclaim. Hassane v. Lawrence, 31 Conn.App. 723, 727 626 A.2d 1336 (1993).
The Court further finds for the defendant under the counterclaim and under Paragraph 14 of the said lease (Exhibit 19) to include one-half (1/2) of the said cleaning expense of $193.00, the removal of storage items — $200.00, the range burner trays $15.00, and one-half (1/2) of the month's rent for August — $413.00 for a total offset under the counterclaim of $821.00 to be awarded to the defendant. The remaining balance of the security deposit ($862.00) which includes interest is to be returned to the plaintiff within ten days of this decision. No attorneys fees or costs are awarded to either party.
Judgment enters accordingly.