RELATED MANAGEMENT CO. v. ACEVEDO, No. HDSP-144133 (Feb. 26, 2008)

RELATED MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LP, ET AL. v. JOANNA ACEVEDO

No. HDSP-144133Connecticut Superior Court HOUSING SESSION J.D. OF HARTFORD AT HARTFORD
February 26, 2008

[EDITOR’S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

PETER EMMETT WIESE, Judge.

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
This is a summary process action in which judgment entered on December 3, 2007 in accordance with the stipulation of the parties. The judgment in favor of the plaintiff provided that there was a non-final stay through September 30, 2008 with reinstatement of the defendant upon fulfillment of the terms of the stipulation. The stipulation also required in relevant part that the defendant “will maintain electricity in her name”, paragraph 3; and “will obey all terms of her former lease”, paragraph 4.

On December 20, 2007 the plaintiff filed an affidavit of non-compliance with the stipulated judgment. In relevant part the plaintiff alleged that the defendant breached the terms of the judgment and lease agreement by failing to maintain electrical service in her name.[1]

Based upon the credible evidence presented, the court finds that in December 2007, CLP terminated power to the apartment because of nonpayment. The power was restored in January 2008 when the service was placed under the name of Juan Acevedo, the defendant’s father. The service remains in this gentleman’s name. These occurrences violated the lease agreement and the stipulated judgment. The termination of electrical service in the winter months in the apartment is material noncompliance with the terms of the agreements. The defendant has not proven that she is entitled to the benefits of equitable relief against forfeiture. “A court of equity will apply the doctrine of clean hands to a tenant seeking such equitable relief; thus, a tenant whose breach was `willful’ or `grossly negligent’ will not be entitled to relief.”Fellows v. Martin, 217 Conn. 57, 67 (1991). The court finds that the defendant’s failure to maintain electrical service, and to maintain the service in her name, constitutes willful or grossly negligent conduct. Accordingly, the objection is overruled and an execution shall issue.

[1] The plaintiff also alleged that the defendant tampered with the CT Page 2297 electric meter and did some damage to the premises. The plaintiff has not sustained its burden of proof on this claim.

CT Page 2298