Background
Frog Bridge Development Company leased an apartment in Willimantic to Joseph Osborne for $900 monthly. After the written lease expired, Osborne continued as a month-to-month tenant. In December 2023, the landlord offered a one-year renewal at $1,400 per month and stated that, if Osborne neither renewed nor left, a month-to-month tenancy would continue at $1,550 per month. Osborne stayed but did not pay the proposed increased rent.
The landlord brought summary process on grounds that Osborne refused the rent increase and failed to pay March 2024 rent. Osborne asserted, among other defenses, protection under General Statutes § 47a-23c as a tenant with a disability. After trial, the Housing Court entered judgment of possession on both counts, finding the proposed increase fair and equitable. In an articulation, it found an ongoing $900 month-to-month tenancy and concluded that Osborne had not paid March use and occupancy.
The Court’s Holding
The Appellate Court upheld the judgment on the refusal-to-accept-a-rent-increase count. Section 47a-23c(c)(1)’s requirement that a protected tenant’s increase be “fair and equitable” is not ambiguous: the statute expressly directs courts to the criteria in § 7-148c. The trial court properly treated the ultimate fair-and-equitable determination as discretionary and did not clearly err in crediting evidence concerning comparable rents, inflation, and increased operating costs.
The court rejected Osborne’s argument that the trial judge improperly relied on personal attitudes or experience rather than evidence. But it agreed that the finding of unpaid March 2024 rent was clearly erroneous. The property manager testified that Osborne made full $900 payments from February through May 2024, and the parties agreed the record contained no evidence of a missed March payment. The court therefore reversed only the nonpayment count and directed judgment for Osborne on that count.
Key Takeaways
- For tenants protected by § 47a-23c, whether a rent increase is fair and equitable is assessed through the § 7-148c criteria.
- The appellate court reviews the ultimate fair-and-equitable determination for abuse of discretion and related factual findings for clear error.
- A possession judgment based on nonpayment cannot stand where the record does not support the alleged missed payment.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms that § 47a-23c does not impose a fixed cap or percentage test for rent increases affecting protected tenants. Trial courts must instead assess the applicable statutory factors and the evidence presented.
It also illustrates that a landlord may prevail on a fair-and-equitable rent-increase ground even when a separate nonpayment theory fails for lack of record support.