Pollansky v. Pollansky
A landlord is not required to inform each tenant, prior to the service of the notice to quit, for the landlord's notice to quit to be valid. In the 1960s, Anna and Andrew Pollansky purchased 84 acres of property in Coventry. Andrew managed a sand-and-gravel business, then retired. The Pollanskys permitted their child, Steven, and Steven's wife, Darby, to use the property. When Andrew passed away, Anna and Steven were unable to reach agreement about rent. Anna served a notice to quit and filed a summary-process suit, to obtain immediate possession. The notice to quit provided, "The premises described above [are] being occupied by one who originally had the right or privilege to occupy such premises but such right or privilege has terminated." Steven objected that his father promised that he would receive an ownership interest. The trial court found that the plaintiff proved her summary-process claim, pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes §47a-23(a), and that Steven failed to prove that he possessed an ownership interest. The defendants appealed and argued that the use of the present perfect tense in the phrase ‘‘has terminated'' in C.G.S. §47a-23(a)(3) requires that, for the notice to quit to be valid, the right or privilege to occupy must end before the service of the notice to quit. C.G.S. §47a-23(a)(3), wrote the court, "does not expressly provide that an owner's decision to terminate an occupant's right or privilege to occupy must be made known to each occupant at a time prior to the delivery of the notice to quit." If the legislature had intended to require that the landlord inform each tenant prior to the service of the notice to quit, it possessed that option. C.G.S. §47a-23(a)(2), which was added at the same time as (a)(3), is similar in that it does not include additional notice procedures, beyond a notice to quit. Service of the notice to quit on Anna's grandchild, one day after her 18th birthday, was sufficient to serve her as an adult, pursuant to C.G.S. §47a-23(a)(3). The notice to quit was valid, and the Appellate Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court.