Background
65-99 Burban Associates, LLC leased approximately 14,000 square feet of church space, an attached parsonage, a parking lot, and surrounding grounds in Branford to New Antioch Church of God and its pastor, Esau A. Greene, Jr. The five-year lease ran from March 15, 2021, through March 14, 2026. Although the landlord was initially responsible for specified roof, window, and HVAC work, the tenants thereafter assumed broad maintenance and repair obligations. The trial court found that the landlord performed or credited the tenants for various repairs.
The tenants repeatedly paid rent late, paid less than required, or made no payment. After a partial payment in September 2023, they stopped paying rent, accruing $109,300 in unpaid rent, use and occupancy, and late fees through October 2024. The landlord served a notice to quit in May 2024 and then brought this summary process action. Following trial, the Superior Court rendered judgment of possession for the landlord, finding nonpayment of rent and rejecting the asserted special defenses. Greene appealed separately in a self-represented capacity.
The Court’s Holding
The Appellate Court affirmed without reaching the merits of Greene’s four appellate claims. It declined to review his contention that the trial court denied him the right to represent himself because he never told the trial court that he wished to proceed without counsel and because his appellate brief lacked adequate legal authority and substantive analysis. The record showed that counsel entered an appearance for Greene on the day of trial and told the court that he represented both Greene and the church, without objection from Greene.
The court also declined to review Greene’s claims that the premises were legally uninhabitable, that the eviction was retaliatory, and that the summary process case should have been stayed pending resolution of a separate breach-of-contract action. Those claims had not been distinctly raised and decided in the trial court. In particular, neither Greene nor the church pleaded uninhabitability or statutory retaliation as a special defense, and the defendants never requested a stay or continuance based on the separate action.
Key Takeaways
- An appellate court ordinarily will not review an issue that was not distinctly presented to and decided by the trial court.
- Self-represented litigants receive some procedural latitude but still must supply relevant authority, substantive analysis, and record support in their appellate briefs.
- A party who wants to proceed without counsel must make that request known to the trial court; silence when counsel appears and states that he represents the party does not preserve a self-representation claim.
- Arguments that an eviction was retaliatory, that leased premises were uninhabitable, or that proceedings should have been stayed must be properly raised in the trial court to preserve them for appeal.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that preservation and briefing rules can determine a summary process appeal without appellate consideration of the underlying merits. Parties must clearly plead applicable defenses, request any desired stay or continuance, and obtain a trial court ruling on the precise issues they intend to appeal.
For attorneys handling expedited possession cases, the opinion also illustrates the importance of creating a clear record concerning representation and related civil proceedings. A separate lawsuit or administrative consolidation order does not automatically preserve a request to halt a summary process action.