Legal Question in Landlord & Tenant Law in Connecticut

A friend of mine owns a house with an in-law apartment, occupied by her daughter. My friend's husband was always very indulgent toward this daughter. He let her pay what she wanted, when she could. He also let her gradually take over more and more of the property. Now, she not only has the apartment, she has filled the garage with all kinds of used furniture that she thought she would refinish and sell but never did. She also has outdoor furniture sprawled all over the patio and yard. This situation was the final grievance that broke up my friend's marriage; they got divorced last summer. While the divorce was pending, there was a lot of verbal abuse and threats. My friend moved out of the house temporarily and came to stay with me for about 6 months. After her husband died in the fall of 2009, she moved back into the house, which the family Court had ordered transfered to her name alone. (It was kind of complicated. Although the family Court transfered the house to her in July of 2009, the husband was allowed to continue living there through the end of October. He died in September, at which time my friend moved back into her house.)

Once my friend moved back into her house, her attorney began an eviction action to get the daughter out of the apartment. While there was never anything in writing specifying the amount of rent, the daughter had been giving her father $500 per month, which was a real bargain, considering that this is a 2-bedroom apartment with all utilities included in a very nice suburban location. The daughter paid my friend $500 per month, not on time, but she paid. The lawyer based the eviction on "lapse of time." We went through so many pretrials, but the attorneys could not reach an agreement. We finally went to trial. At trial, the daughter's attorney established through testimony that there was no agreement of any kind between my friend and his client. The judge seemed sympathetic to my friend and said something to the effect that it was obvious that there was a real problem here that needed to be addressed. (The police have been called to the premises numerous times. The daughter was arrested for threatening someone hired to do some work on the property, and that action is pending in criminal court.) The judge seemed genuinely sorry to have to rule in the daughter's favor on the summary process action. He made a finding announced in open court that there was no agreement between the parties. It seems you can't kick a tenant out for "lapse of time" if there was no underlying agreement in the first place.

My friend's lawyer has gone back to square one and is now beginning the summary process action again on different grounds. It seems to me that since the housing court found "no agreement," then couldn't my friend simply change the locks on the apartment or shut off the utilities? If there's no agreement, then my friend isn't really a landlord, isn't that right? While the daughter technically won in housing court, I had the impression that the judge handed my friend a back-handed victory, almost dropping a hint that the coast was clear for her to proceed on her own, without having to get anyone's consent to throw the daughter out. The outcome in housing court took us by surprise. It seemed to me that the daughter's lawyer was doing my friend's lawyer's work for him. Any feedback or suggestions from others would be most welcome.

1 Answer from Attorneys

Related Questions & Answers

More Landlord & Tenants questions and answers in Connecticut

Looking for something else?