Blog

Landlord / Tenant pre-termination “KAPA” Notice

The eviction process in Connecticut, begins with a Notice to Quit. This Notice sets forth the reason why the Landlord is starting the Summary Process (eviction) case, such as for example “Non Payment of Rent”, or “Lapse of Time”. The Summary Process (eviction) complaint is filed in court after a proper Notice to Quit is served.

However, on occasion, a “pre-termination notice” (also known as a KAPA notice), is required even before the Notice to Quit is served.

A “pre-termination notice” can refer to the notice that must be provided, under federal law, before a landlord is permitted to initiate eviction proceedings against a tenant who occupies federally subsidized housing. Connecticut law also requires a pre-termination notice under certain circumstances. See General Statutes § 47a-15 (requiring a landlord to provide pre-termination notice to the tenant before filing any eviction action based, among other things, on alleged material noncompliance with terms of lease, unless the noncompliance involves nonpayment of rent or serious nuisance). This state statutory requirement, often called a Kapa notice, see Kapa Associates v. Flores, 35 Conn.Supp. 274, 408 A.2d 22 (1979), requires the landlord to give the tenant at least fifteen days to cure the alleged non-compliance before any lease termination becomes effective.

Mistakes made early on in an eviction case, might not be discovered until weeks or months later. Working with an experienced attorney early in the process, is important in this area of the law.

What is “Short Calendar” in Connecticut Superior Court?

UPDATE: August 26, 2016: The Family Short Calendar procedure at the Tolland Judicial District, 69 Brooklyn Street, Rockville, has changed effective October 3, 2016. All matters that appear on this calendar are deemed ready. Ready markings are no longer required. A marking is only necessary if the party who filed the motion wishes the matter to be marked off. If the party who filed the motion does not appear, the court may deem oral argument waived and the motion may be denied by the court. If the party who did not file the motion does not appear, the court may deem oral argument waived and may grant the relief requested in the motion. The Family Short Calendar in the Tolland Judicial District, will be called at 9:30 a.m.

 

The “Short Calendar” procedure can be confusing to both Connecticut attorneys, and self-represented (“pro se”) parties. To make matters more complicated, customs and procedures may vary between courts.

Short Calendar procedures apply to both civil and family court cases. In Rockville Court (Tolland County, Connecticut) Short Calendar is held on Monday morning each week, except when Monday is a holiday. Those who have filed motions in Family (divorce and custody) cases, will have to follow the Short Calendar procedure to mark their case “Ready” (or “Take Papers” if applicable, for certain motions), and notify the opposing party they intend to proceed. This is done several days in advance of court, during the allowed ‘marking period’.

In Family Cases, motions will be marked “ready” again at the 9:30 am calendar call on Monday morning. Parties should sign in with Family Relations as soon as possible, as there is usually a long wait. Parties will need to first meet with Family Relations Officers, who will try to help the parties resolve their disagreements. If an agreement is reached, it needs to be drafted. The parties will sign the agreement, and bring the written agreement into Court. Newer files get scanned and e-filed, before going into court, at the Court Services Center. The judge will canvas the parties (i.e. ask if the parties believe the agreement is fair and equitable, and in the best interests of the minor child(ren), and review the details of the agreement with the parties), before the judge enters the agreement as an Order of the Court.

Parties should come prepared to Family Short Calendar with Financial Affidavits, and supporting documents (i.e. pay stubs). They may also wish to prepare Proposed Orders, and prepare exhibits should the case have to go before a Judge, for a decision. If a party has an Attorney, then the Attorney will accompany the party through the process. The court might not permit lengthy evidence on a Short Calendar date. It is possible that if an agreement is not reached, the case will be scheduled for a “Special Assignment”, which could be days or weeks later, depending on the court’s availability and urgency of the issues.

The procedures above may vary from court to court, and may be modified from time to time by the presiding judge, or new court rules.

The process for civil cases, is also quite different. In civil cases, many motions are not ‘arguable as of right’ and there are special procedures to request oral argument. You need to be familiar with the Connecticut Practice Book (“Rules of Court”), as well as the substantive law, including Rules of Evidence, that will apply to your legal issues.

Speak with an attorney who is familiar with the Short Calendar procedures in your jurisdiction, to address the specific circumstances of your case.

A Short Calendar and Marking Process Quick Reference Guide, published by the judicial branch, is available at: https://www.jud.ct.gov/external/super/e-services/efile/shortcal_quickref.pdf

Restraining Orders & Protective Orders

We are often asked about Restraining Orders, and Protective Orders.

The information below, is available on the Connecticut judicial website: https://www.jud.ct.gov/statistics/prot_restrain/

Every case is fact specific. If you are involved in a proceeding that involves either a civil Restraining Order, or a criminal Protective Order, we strongly advise you to speak with an experienced attorney.

Protective / Restraining Order Glossary

  • Family Violence Protective Order (section 46b-38c of the Connecticut General Statutes) is an order that is issued at the time of arraignment during a criminal proceeding. Usually these orders are recommended by either the family relations office or in some cases the state’s attorney’s office. These orders are usually in effect from the date they are issued until the criminal case is sentenced and/or disposed of. In some cases a protective order can be removed prior to the underlying case being settled.
  • Standing Criminal Restraining Order (section 53a-40e of the Connecticut General Statutes is an order that is issued usually at the end of a criminal case. These are lifetime orders and remain in effect until further order of the court. This order type is generally issued when it is a more severe criminal case.
  • Restraining Order Application (section 46b-15 of the Connecticut General Statutes) is an application for a restraining order ex parte (immediate). It is given out at the clerk’s office to people who come in for relief from abuse in family cases. A Judge reviews the application and affidavit, and decides whether or not to issue a restraining order relief from abuse. If one is issued, the application is then updated to an ex parte restraining order. The Judge can also deny the ex parte relief and issue an Order for Hearing and Notice Summons.
  • Ex Parte Restraining Order (section 46b-15 of the Connecticut General Statutes) is an order issued by the family court when someone has completed the restraining order application. The Judge has reviewed the application and affidavit, and issues a temporary ex parte restraining order. A hearing date is scheduled, and the respondent must be notified. Generally speaking, this order is good for for 14 days, or until the date of the hearing. (Hearings can be scheduled before the 14-day time limit).
  • Restraining Order After Hearing (section 46b-15 of the Connecticut General Statutes) is issued after a hearing on an ex parte restraining order, or an Order for Hearing and Notice Summons. Again, this order type is issued out of the family court. Generally speaking, it is effective for 6 months from the date of the hearing. A victim/applicant can request that the restraining order after the hearing be extended when the 6 months is about to run out. They must file a motion to extend and the respondent must again get notice.

Fire Sprinkler System Disclosure in Residential Leases

Connecticut residential landlords, take notice:

As of October 1, 2015, Connecticut law (Section 57 of bill 1502) requires that residential landlords include a notice in a rental agreement, as to the existence or nonexistence of an operative fire sprinkler system. Further, if there is an operative fire sprinkler system in the dwelling unit, the rental agreement “shall provide further notice as to the last date of maintenance and inspection…” The notices “shall be printed in not less than twelve-point boldface type of uniform font.”

 

 

 

Connecticut’s DUI/OUI laws effective July 1, 2015

The Connecticut Department of Motor Vehicles has provided a useful summary of changes to Connecticut’s Operating Under the Influence (OUI) laws. Note new provisions of the laws, effective July 1, 2015, affecting driver license suspensions and Ignition Interlock Devices.

The summary below is available at: https://www.ct.gov/dmv/cwp/view.asp?a=813&q=249562

Connecticut’s Drunk Driving Law
Operating Under the Influence (OUI)
In Connecticut, operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs is a criminal offense. This offense may be prosecuted with or without any direct evidence of a person’s BAC. The determining factor is whether a person’s ability to drive has been impaired.
Driving is a privilege, and under Connecticut’s Implied Consent Law any person who operates a motor vehicle is presumed to have given his or her consent to a test to determine blood alcohol concentration (BAC).
You are legally intoxicated if your BAC is .08 or above.
If you are under 21 years of age, you are legally intoxicated at a .02 BAC or higher.
Any amount of alcohol will affect driving ability. Alcohol’s effect is magnified by emotions, physical condition, use of prescription drugs or other types of drugs, some over-the-counter medications and some herbal supplements.
If you are arrested for OUI:
  • You will be detained by the police and read your rights.
  • Your vehicle will be towed at your expense.
  • You will be taken in a police cruiser to the police station.
  • If the test registers a BAC of .08 or higher, you will be held on the presumption that you were operating under the influence.
  • You will be kept in a police lock-up until you are bailed out.
There are two ways to lose your license:
1. Administrative Per Se through DMV
for failing or refusing a chemical alcohol test
When a driver is arrested and charged with operating under the influence of alcohol or drugs, the arrest report is sent to DMV. Upon receipt of the arrest report, DMV imposes a suspension under Connecticut General Statute §14-227b for the failure of the blood, breath or urine test (whichever is requested by the arresting officer) or for the refusal to submit to the test. In most cases, the suspension will begin 30 days after the arrest date. The license suspension is based on the arrest information and is separate from any penalties or requirements that may be imposed as a result of the court case.
A notice of suspension will be mailed to the address of record allowing you seven days to request a hearing. If you wish to request a hearing, call the Administrative Per Se Unit at 860-263-5204 (8:30a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday) before the deadline stated on your suspension notice.

Beginning with arrest dates on or after July 1, 2015, ALL driver license suspensions for failing or refusing a chemical alcohol test will be forty-five (45) days.

Installation of an Ignition Interlock Device (IID) will be required prior to restoration for ALL alcohol related suspensions. Following restoration, the IID must be maintained for at least the length of time listed below:

IID requirement for drivers under 21 years old*

Blood Alcohol Level

First Offense

Second Offense

Third or Subsequent Offense

Test results of .02 or higher

1 year

2 years

3 years

IID requirement for drivers 21 Years Old and Older*

Blood Alcohol Level

First Offense

Second Offense

Third or Subsequent Offense

Test results of .08 or higher

6 months

1 year

2 years

IID requirement for ALL drivers*

Refusal of test

First Offense

Second Offense

Third or Subsequent

Offense

Refusal to submit to a breath, urine, or blood test

1 year

2 years

3 years

*If you are convicted in court for operating while under the influence of alcohol or drugs under Connecticut General Statute §14-227a for the same arrest, the IID may be required for a longer term. The IID is required for the duration specified in Connecticut General Statute §14-227b(i) or Connecticut General Statute §14-227a(g), whichever is longer. See Section 2 below.

If you were arrested prior to July 1, 2015 you may petition in writing to the Commissioner of the Department of Motor Vehicles for the option to participate in the IID program. After serving at least 45 days of your suspension for failing or refusing the chemical test, you will be required to have an IID for the remainder of the original suspension, plus the additional duration required (if any) following a conviction under Connecticut General Statute §14-227a for the same arrest.

 

2. Court conviction for Operating Under the Influence of Alcohol or Drugs (OUI)

 

Under Connecticut’s criminal law, a driver arrested for OUI will receive both a summons and a court date. If the court proceedings result in a conviction, the following penalties must be imposed by the Department of Motor Vehicles:

 

Operating Under the Influence of Alcohol or Drugs

Connecticut General Statute §14-227a or §14-227g

Conviction on or after July 1, 2015

First Conviction

Second Conviction

Third or Subsequent Conviction

45 day license suspension

If the 45 day suspension for failing or refusing a chemical test for the same arrest has already been served, may be eligible for restoration immediately if there are no other suspensions.

Must install Ignition Interlock Device (IID)

IID required for one year following restoration, or for the duration required under the Administrative Per Se law, whichever is longer

If already reinstated with an IID following the suspension for failing or refusing a chemical test for the same arrest, the IID will be credited toward completion of the one year requirement

45 day license suspension

If the 45 day suspension for failing or refusing a chemical test for the same arrest has already been served, may be eligible for restoration immediately if there are no other suspensions.

Must install Ignition Interlock Device (IID)

IID required for three years following restoration

During the first year of this three-year period you may drive only to or from work, school, an alcohol or drug abuse treatment program, an IID service center, or an appointment with a probation officer.

If already reinstated with an IID following the suspension for failing or refusing a chemical test for the same arrest, the IID will be credited toward completion of the three year requirement

Permanent revocation of license

Must wait at least two yearsfrom the date of revocation to request a hearing for reconsideration

For arrests prior to July 1, 2015 you may petition in writing to the Commissioner of the Department of Motor Vehicles for the option to participate in the IID program after serving at least 45 days of the suspension under Connecticut General Statute §14-227b for the same arrest. You will be required to have an IID for the time required conviction under Connecticut General Statute §14-227a or Connecticut General Statute §14-227b, whichever is longer.

 

Operating Under the Influence of Alcohol or Drugs

Connecticut General Statute §14-227a, §14-227g, or §14-111n

Conviction after January 1, 2012

First Conviction

Second Conviction

Third or Subsequent Conviction

45 day license suspension

If no other suspensions, eligible for restoration after the 45 day suspension regardless of whether the suspension for failing or refusing a chemical test for the same arrest has been fully served

Must install Ignition Interlock Device (IID)

IID required for one year following restoration

45 days license suspension, or until 21st birthday, whichever is longer.

If no other suspensions, eligible for restoration after the 45 day suspension regardless of whether the suspension for failing or refusing a chemical test for the same arrest has been fully served

Must install Ignition Interlock Device (IID)

IID required for three years following restoration

During the first year of this three-year period you may drive only to or from work, school, an alcohol or drug abuse treatment program, an IID service center, or an appointment with a probation officer.

Permanent revocation of license

Must wait at least two years from the date of revocation to request a hearing for reconsideration for reconsideration

Operating Under the Influence of Alcohol or Drugs

Connecticut General Statute §14-227a, §14-227g, or §14-111n

Conviction prior to January 1, 2012

Under Age 21

First Conviction

Second Conviction

Third or Subsequent conviction

1 year license suspension

3 year license suspension, or until 21st birthday, whichever is longer

Must install Ignition Interlock Device (IID)

IID required for two years following restoration

Permanent revocation of license

Must wait at least two years from the date of revocation to request a hearing forreconsideration

Age 21 or older

First Conviction

Second Conviction

Third or Subsequent conviction

1 year license suspension

1 year license suspension

Must install Ignition Interlock Device (IID)

IID required for two years following restoration

Permanent revocation of license

Must wait at least two years from the date of revocation to request a hearing for reconsideration

 

Manslaughter with a Motor Vehicle, Connecticut General Statute §53a-56b

Assault with a Motor Vehicle, Connecticut General Statute §53a-60d

First Conviction

Second Conviction

Third or Subsequent Conviction

1 year license suspension

Must install Ignition Interlock Device (IID)

IID required for two years following restoration

1 year license suspension

Must install Ignition Interlock Device (IID)

IID required for two years following restoration

Permanent revocation of license

Must wait at least two years from the date of revocation to request a hearing for reconsideration

 

 

To determine if a conviction is a first, second, or third/subsequent offense, any and all convictions reported under Connecticut General Statutes §14-111n, §14-227a, §14-227g, §53a-56b or §53a-60d are considered.

For information concerning restoration or IID requirements, you may write or call:

 

Department of Motor Vehicles

Driver Services Division

60 State Street

Wethersfield, CT 06161-2525

[email protected]

Phone: 860-263-5720

 

 

Content Last Modified on 7/29/2015 12:40:16 PM

Revised Child Support Guidelines, Effective July 1, 2015

Connecticut has revised the Child Support and Arrearage Guidelines, effective July 1, 2015. The revised guidelines are available at: https://www.jud.ct.gov/Publications/ChildSupport/CSguidelines.pdf

For more information, please don’t hesitate to call us, and ask to speak with one of our attorneys.

AN ACT CONCERNING FAMILY COURT PROCEEDINGS

A Committee Bill is pending that may affect Connecticut family law practitioners, and our clients:

General Assembly

Committee Bill No. 5505

January Session, 2015

LCO No. 4691
*04691HB05505JUD*
Referred to Committee on JUDICIARY
Introduced by:
(JUD)

AN ACT CONCERNING FAMILY COURT PROCEEDINGS.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Assembly convened:

Section 1. (NEW) (Effective October 1, 2015) Notwithstanding any provision of chapter 815, 815a, 815e, 815j, 815p, 815t or 815y of the general statutes, a court shall not order that a parent have supervised visitation with his or her child, unless such court finds, based upon the evidence presented to the court, that such parent: (1) Has engaged in an act of neglect or abuse that has been substantiated by the Department of Children and Families; (2) has no established relationship with the child with whom visitation is sought; (3) has engaged in criminal conduct that presents a potential risk to the health, safety or well-being of a child; or (4) suffers from a severe mental disability that presents a potential risk to the health, safety or well-being of a child.

Sec. 2. (NEW) (Effective October 1, 2015) A person aggrieved by the action of counsel or a guardian ad litem for a minor child or children, appointed under section 46b-54 of the general statutes, as amended by this act, may bring a civil action seeking appropriate relief, including equitable relief, damages, or both, in the superior court for the judicial district in which such counsel or guardian ad litem for a minor child was appointed. If such civil action results in a judgment for the plaintiff, the court shall award the plaintiff all costs of the action, including such attorney’s fees as the court may allow to the plaintiff. The court shall not enter any order under this section that would require a plaintiff to pay the costs, expenses or attorney’s fees of counsel or a guardian ad litem for a minor child named as a defendant in such civil action. It shall not be a defense to such civil action that the defendant is entitled to absolute, quasi-judicial immunity.

Sec. 3. (NEW) (Effective October 1, 2015) (a) In a family relations matter, as defined in section 46b-1 of the general statutes, if a court orders that a parent undergo treatment or an evaluation from a licensed health care provider, as defined in section 52-184e of the general statutes, the court shall allow the parent to select the licensed health care provider who is to provide such treatment or evaluation.

(b) In a family relations matter, as defined in section 46b-1 of the general statutes, if a court orders that a child undergo treatment or an evaluation from a licensed health care provider, as defined in section 52-184e of the general statutes, the court shall permit the parent or legal guardian of such child to select the licensed health care provider who is to provide such treatment or evaluation. If two parents do not agree on the selection of a licensed health care provider to provide such treatment or evaluation to a child, the court shall continue the matter for two weeks to allow the parents an opportunity to jointly select the licensed health care provider. If after the two-week period, the parents have not reached an agreement on the selection of a licensed health care provider, the court shall select such provider after giving due consideration to the health insurance coverage and financial resources available to such parents. In the case of two parents who cannot agree on the selection of a licensed health care provider to provide such treatment or evaluation to the child, if a parent incurs expenses as a result of permitting the child to be treated or evaluated by such provider, without the express written consent of the other parent, the parent who permitted such treatment or evaluation to occur shall be solely responsible for the costs incurred for such treatment or evaluation.

(c) In a family relations matter, as defined in section 46b-1 of the general statutes, if a court orders that a parent or child undergo an evaluation from a licensed health care provider, as defined in section 52-184e of the general statutes, the results of such evaluation shall be submitted to the court by such provider not later than thirty days after the date of completion of the evaluation.

Sec. 4. Subsection (e) of section 46b-54 of the general statutes is repealed and the following is substituted in lieu thereof (Effective October 1, 2015):

(e) [Counsel] Except as provided in this subsection, counsel or a guardian ad litem for the minor child or children shall be heard on all matters pertaining to the interests of any child, including the custody, care, support, education and visitation of the child, so long as the court deems such representation to be in the best interests of the child. To the extent practicable, when hearing from such counsel or guardian ad litem, the court shall permit such counsel or guardian ad litem to participate at the beginning of the matter, at the conclusion of the matter or at such other time the court deems appropriate so as to minimize legal fees incurred by the parties due to the participation of such counsel or guardian ad litem in the matter. Such counsel or guardian ad litem [may] shall not be heard on a matter pertaining to a medical diagnosis or conclusion concerning a minor child made by a health care professional treating such child. [when (1) such counsel or guardian ad litem is in possession of a medical record or report of the treating health care professional that indicates or supports such medical diagnosis or conclusion; or (2) one or more parties have refused to cooperate in paying for or obtaining a medical record or report that contains the treating health care professional’s medical diagnosis or conclusion. If] Instead, if the court deems it to be in the best interests of the minor child, such health care professional shall be heard on matters pertaining to the interests of any such child, including the custody, care, support, education and visitation of such child.

This act shall take effect as follows and shall amend the following sections:
Section 1 October 1, 2015 New section
Sec. 2 October 1, 2015 New section
Sec. 3 October 1, 2015 New section
Sec. 4 October 1, 2015 46b-54(e)

Statement of Purpose:

To implement reforms in family court proceedings.

[Proposed deletions are enclosed in brackets. Proposed additions are indicated by underline, except that when the entire text of a bill or resolution or a section of a bill or resolution is new, it is not underlined.]

Co-Sponsors: REP. GONZALEZ, 3rd Dist.; REP. FRITZ, 90th Dist.

H.B. 5505

Two Tolland County Law Firms are Joining Practices

Introducing …

MR&DeF_Logo_sm

 

 

 

 

MORE THAN 90 YEARS OF COMBINED LEGAL EXPERIENCE

Two well-established law firms in Tolland County, Connecticut are joining their law practices. Marder, Roberson & DeFelice Law Offices, LLC will begin operations on January 1, 2015.

By combining legal practices of Marder & DeFelice Law Offices, LLC, and The Law Office of Dale C. Roberson, LLC, this new law firm can provide a depth of experience in multiple practice areas including litigation, bankruptcy, estate planning, family law, business law, criminal law, and commercial and residential real estate.

We are focused on growing our law practices to provide enhanced services, so that we may better serve our clients.

The firm will be located at:

76 South Frontage Road, Vernon, Connecticut

Please contact us for further information. Our telephone numbers, email, and web-site information, will remain unchanged:

www.marder-law.com
Tel. (860) 871-8000
Fax (860) 871-8307
[email protected]

www.robersonlaw.net
Tel. (860) 872-3000
Fax (860) 872-3626
[email protected]

 

Does a party to a divorce need to disclose an accrued, but unvested pension?

Does a party to a divorce need to disclose an accrued, but unvested pension?

In Connecticut parties to a divorce need to exchange Financial Affidavits. These affidavits are designed to provide a comprehensive picture of income, living expenses, assets, and liabilities. A party to a divorce is entitled to rely on the representations of an opposing-party’s Financial Affidavit.

What happens when a party to a divorce does not disclose an accrued, but unvested pension on his or her Financial Affidavit? If a party can argue that an asset was not appropriately disclosed, they may try to re-open a divorce judgment, as it relates to property distribution.

The Connecticut Supreme Court, in the case of Catherine Reville vs. John Reville (SC 18452) (officially released July 8, 2014) addresses the issue. As stated in this decision:

• A party is legally obligated to disclose the existence and characteristics of a pension regardless of whether it clearly is distributable property (under Connecticut General Statute Section 46b-81).

• A party’s ability to show she was defrauded, is not dependent on her establishing that had she known about the pension, she would have been awarded some portion of it.

The real issue in the Reville case is disclosure, as opposed to the right to a party’s interest in the pension, which is addressed in an earlier case . See Bender v. Bender, 258 Conn. 751
The Supreme Court commented that the existence of the pension “was a highly relevant consideration both for the plaintiff in deciding whether to agree to the proposed settlement agreement, and for the dissolution court in deciding whether to approve that agreement.” “Accordingly, nondisclosure, if proven, could have caused the plaintiff to act to her detriment, and full disclosure could have led to a different result in the dissolution action.”

The Court reiterated that “all retirement and employment benefits potentially receivable by a party to a dissolution action must be fully and frankly disclosed on that party’s financial affidavits, regardless of whether they are definitively established to be distributable marital property.”

Joel A. DeFelice is a partner at Marder & DeFelice Law Offices, LLC, located in Vernon, Connecticut.