Background
Sarjac Partners, LLC, a commercial property manager, entered into a four-year lease with Shauna Giuliano in July 2022 for a second-floor salon space at a multi-unit property in West Hartford. The lease ran from September 1, 2021, through August 31, 2025, and required Sarjac to keep the premises reasonably maintained. The property housed several commercial tenants, including a hookah lounge, bar, and restaurant operations.
Beginning in 2023, the property suffered from significant maintenance defects. Common areas frequently had holes punched in walls, beer bottles, and broken glass on weekends. Bathrooms were frequently filthy or clogged. The elevator was repeatedly out of service for extended periods, and when operational, lacked finished flooring and had a sticky substance on its floor. Water damage from an unrepaired roof caused ceiling tiles to fall throughout the building, including repeatedly in Giuliano’s salon space onto her chairs. Despite complaints, Giuliano continued operating her business by using a propped-open side door for stair access when the elevator failed.
In August 2023, Sarjac directed Giuliano to stop propping the side door open and instructed her to post a sign asking clients to call her for entry—requiring her to stop mid-haircut, answer phones, go downstairs repeatedly, and return upstairs. Giuliano testified this made operating her business impossible. She vacated the premises that month without paying August 2023 rent. In February 2024, Sarjac sued for breach of contract and unpaid rent; Giuliano counterclaimed for constructive eviction and breach of contract.
The Court’s Holding
The trial court found that Sarjac breached the lease agreement by failing to reasonably maintain the premises. Though Sarjac did not physically cause the damage and Giuliano knew bar and restaurant tenants occupied the property, the court held that neither fact excused the landlord’s maintenance obligations. The trial court found Giuliano’s testimony credible, including her account of maintenance problems and the final breaking point when access became functionally impossible.
The trial court further held the premises had become untenantable in light of Giuliano’s intended use as a hair salon. The convergence of serious maintenance defects—falling ceiling tiles striking her workspace, a non-functional elevator, loss of stair access, and the inability to serve customers—established constructive eviction. The landlord had been notified of the problems and given reasonable time to correct them before Giuliano vacated.
On appeal, the Connecticut Appellate Court reviewed the trial court’s factual findings for clear error—the standard requiring either a finding unsupported by any evidence or circumstances that leave the reviewing court with a “definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” The appellate court affirmed, holding the trial court’s findings were supported by evidence and did not constitute clear error. The court gave great deference to the trial judge’s weighing of evidence and credibility determinations.
Key Takeaways
- A landlord’s failure to maintain premises reasonably breaches the lease even if the landlord did not directly cause the damage and the tenant knew of other tenants’ operations at the time of signing.
- Constructive eviction occurs when a landlord’s failure to maintain renders premises untenantable for their intended use, causing reasonable interference with the tenant’s use and occupancy.
- A final, specific interference—such as loss of reasonable access—combined with ongoing maintenance defects can establish constructive eviction sufficient to justify vacation without rent liability.
- Appellate courts give substantial deference to trial courts’ factual findings and credibility assessments in landlord-tenant disputes.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces that Connecticut landlords cannot ignore maintenance obligations in commercial leases, even when multiple tenants share a property or a tenant knew of other commercial uses. The ruling clarifies that constructive eviction is not limited to residential contexts and can apply to commercial tenants when premises become unsuitable for the tenant’s business operations. Landlords cannot rely on tenant knowledge of neighboring businesses as a defense to breaching maintenance covenants.
The case demonstrates that the final straw—here, being unable to receive customers—combines with antecedent maintenance failures to justify a tenant’s departure. For commercial landlords, the decision underscores that managing shared spaces with multiple tenants requires active maintenance, particularly addressing impacts on individual tenants’ ability to conduct business. Failure to do so can result in liability for constructive eviction and lost rent, even when the tenant remains current on payments until vacation.