Net Realty Holding Trust v. Nelson
33 Conn. Super. Ct. 22, 33 Conn.Supp. 22, 358 A.2d 365 (1976)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A landlord's covenant of quiet enjoyment is not breached by the acts of third-party trespassers when those acts are not committed with the landlord's knowledge, permission, or direction. The covenant only protects a tenant from disturbances caused by the landlord or by someone with a paramount title to the property.
Facts:
- The plaintiff landlord leased commercial space in an enclosed shopping mall to the defendants for a two-year term beginning January 15, 1973.
- The defendants operated a miniature golf course on the leased premises.
- The golf course and surrounding mall attracted groups of young people who would loiter, behave boisterously, and trespass on the defendants' premises without playing.
- Despite security guards being called to disperse these individuals, they would often return.
- The intruders eventually assaulted one of the defendants' employees and stole the business's cashbox.
- As a result of these ongoing disturbances, the defendants' business declined.
- The defendants abandoned the premises in mid-February 1975, before the expiration of their lease.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff landlord sued the defendant tenants in a court of first instance for unpaid rent after the tenants abandoned the leased premises.
- The defendants filed a counterclaim against the plaintiff, alleging constructive eviction due to a breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a landlord breach the covenant of quiet enjoyment, thereby constructively evicting a commercial tenant, when the tenant's business is repeatedly disturbed by the criminal and disruptive acts of third-party trespassers?
Opinions:
Majority - Grillo, J.
No. A landlord does not breach the covenant of quiet enjoyment when a tenant's possession is disturbed by the acts of third-party intruders. The court reasoned that the covenant of quiet enjoyment protects a tenant only from disturbances caused by the landlord or by someone with a paramount title, not from the acts of a 'mere intruder.' A constructive eviction requires some act by the landlord that renders the premises untenantable. Here, the evidence showed that the interference was not done with the plaintiff's knowledge, permission, or direction, making the connection between the landlord and the trespassers' acts 'too attenuated' to establish liability. Furthermore, even if the landlord had a duty to act, the plaintiff took reasonable steps by arranging for security guards and consulting with local police. The court concluded that a tenant in a busy commercial mall cannot realistically expect perfect quietude and the landlord is not an insurer against all disruptive incidents.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the traditional, limited scope of the covenant of quiet enjoyment in commercial leases. It clarifies that landlords are generally not responsible for the unforeseeable criminal or disruptive acts of third parties, provided the landlord did not sanction the conduct and took reasonable security measures. This ruling limits a tenant's ability to claim constructive eviction based on the behavior of other patrons or trespassers in common areas. It places the burden on the tenant to demonstrate a direct link between the landlord's actions or culpable inaction and the disturbance, rather than merely pointing to a failure to prevent all third-party misconduct.
