NOTICE TO QUIT

What is the proper quit date on a notice to quit terminating a month to month lease when the lease is being terminated on the grounds of lapse of time?

You have a paying tenant, but for some reason you want to remove the tenant from the property. Since the tenancy goes from month to month you may terminate the tenancy during any month by simply having the tenant served with a notice to quit stating as grounds for termination, "lapse of time". See C. G. S. Sec. 47a-23 (10)(a)(1)(A) . But, what about the quit date? In most cases you would make the quit date about 7 days ahead of the date the notice to quit is prepared. However, in a month to month tenancy where the tenant has paid, the tenant has the right to occupy until the last day of the month. Should the quit date be the last day of the month or the first day of the next month? The answer to that question becomes "metaphysical" as one judge put it.

Some decisions have held that a notice to quit was defective where the quit date was the last day of the month. (For example, see Discala v. Zamfino, SNBR-7 (12/2/82, Driscoll, J.) The courts have reasoned that the lessee is entitled to possession for the entire length of the term and that the landlord has no right to demand possession until after the last day of the month.

The other side of the argument is that the lessee has until the very last moment of the last day of the term to leave and, in theory, is not entitled to be on the premises a moment after the expiration of the lease. i.e., into the first day of the next month. According to Judge Beach in Connecticut Light & Power Company v. Dura Construction, No. SPN 27541 (Feb. 2, 1998), "Any protracted discussion of the logic involved is more metaphysical than practical." Judge Beach also cited and relied on a Connecticut Supreme Court of Errors decision from 1865 in holding that the last day of the month is the property quit date. In Fox v. Nathans, 32 Conn. 348, 352-53 (1865), the court held that a quit date of the last day of the term is proper, as even with such a quit date the lessee maybe on the premises until the very last moment of the very last day. Although Fox was decided over 130 years ago, it has not been overruled and remains binding authority. Fox has been cited with approval relatively recently. See, e.g., Couloucoundis v. Stevenson, No. SPH 28711, H-665 (Housing Session 1985) Page 1357 (Goldstein, J.). And, most recently in New Haven, Judge Leavitt agreed with Judge Beach and relied on the Fox decision, supra, and upheld a notice to quit possession which gave the tenants until the last day of the month to quit possession. (See Asmus v. Inguaggiato, SPNH61988 (March 27, 2000) (Leavitt, J.)

In short, the proper quit date on a notice to quit terminating a month to month tenancy on the grounds of lapse of time is the last day of the month.

Additional Provisions for Your Residential Lease Form

Each legislative session or so, the Connecticut legislature tinkers with the laws governing landlord/tenant matters. Although the changes are small, there have been some significant provisions added to the Connecticut General Statutes that you should be aware of and there are provisions that you should consider incorporating into your residential or commercial lease form.

For example, since 1998 it has been a crime to intentionally or recklessly damage the rented dwelling. See Connecticut General Statutes §§ 53a-117e and 53a-117f, and Public Act 98-107.
These crimes are classified as either misdemeanors or felonies depending on the amount of the damage caused. (a misdemeanor means that the potential jail time is less than one year, a felony exposes someone to more than one year in jail.)

Local towns have been slow to charge people with these crimes. However, I am aware that Hamden has charged tenants with these crimes. East Haven is at least aware of these crimes. West Haven has also just recently begun arresting tenants under these statutes.

I have included the following paragraph in my residential lease form:

Intentionally or recklessly damaging the property is a crime. See Connecticut General Statutes §§ 53a-117e and 53a-117f, and Public Act 98-107.

For the full residential lease form, please get in touch with us.

This year the legislature has two bills before it concerning landlord and tenant law. Bills 565 and 6237 would, among other things, increase the penalties for tenants who intentionally damage the rented property and eliminate the protection of the summary process statutes as to non-
tenant occupants, by providing that the statutes apply only to those who have a rental agreement with the property owner or to sublessors whose sublease is authorized directly or indirectly by the owner.