PAUL F. MILLER DBA PAUL MILLER, TRUSTEE v. RASHEL WILLIAMS ET AL.

2010 Ct. Sup. 20130
No. BRSP-072815Connecticut Superior Court Judicial District of Fairfield, Housing Session at Bridgeport
October 19, 2010

[EDITOR’S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
MOORE, J.

This is a summary process action based on nonpayment. The court has weighed all the evidence presented and assessed the credibility of the witnesses. Based on the evidence presented and assessed the credibility of the witnesses. Based on the evidence presented, the court makes the following findings regarding the respective claims.

The agreement between the parties which called for payment of the first of the month was modified by the plaintiff to the practice of applying the assessment and payment of the rent on the fifteenth of the month of her employment records. The defendant relied on this practice although she had been terminated from her employment and the court cannot find proper notice was given to the defendant as to the change of the practice back to the first of the month. Therefore, the defendant was not late with the July payment when the notice to quit was served on July 16 as the statutory nine days had not passed.

Furthermore, the court notes that the tenant is not under any obligation to pay rent and/or use and occupancy during the pendency of a summary process action unless under court order to do so. Accordingly, the defendant will be obligated to pay only October’s rent and shall have nine calendar days from October 18 to do so. Any rent after October shall be due on the first of the month with the statutory nine days thereafter.

CT Page 20131