Unconstitutional Connecticut Courts

Last Thursday, I had a case at the court in New Britain that went well. However, I wanted to share a few lessons learned about how judges think about our Constitution.

I needed to evict a tenant at sufferance from a house I purchased at a foreclosure auction. The plaintiff addresses the court first with a pleading. In my scenario, I pleaded that the court show the utmost respect and deference to our Constitution, with a focus on the takings clause. Judge Lopez gave an interesting facial expression to this, which I would learn later as to why.

The taking clause is part of our Constitution and prevents a government from seizing private property without compensation. Average Americans will think about this under the label of eminent domain. A government or court-taking can come in two forms. The taking may be physical, which means that the?government literally takes the property from its owner). Or the taking may be constructive, which means that the government restricts the owner's rights so much that the governmental action becomes the functional equivalent of a physical seizure.

Also in Connecticut law "After a notice to quit has been served ... a tenant at sufferance no longer has a duty to pay rent. He still, however, is obliged to pay a fair rental value in the form of use and occupancy for the dwelling unit.?Lonergan?v.?Connecticut Food Store, Inc.,?168 Conn. 122, 131, 357 A.2d 910 (1975)

Why are the takings clause and the reference to prior law important? Just so you know, the judge ruled in my favor. The judge also granted the current occupant a stay of two additional months with no requirement to pay me anything. This was after the occupant had occupied the property since September 11th.

To recover monies from the occupant requires me to open another case in small claims court and go through the process of waiting again. I asked a lawyer in the hallway after the ruling, what allows a judge to ignore aspects of our Constitution. Once we got past defense of the profession of law, he suggested that there is no efficient way to hold them accountable without having to reach even deeper into your wallet and appeal the decision.

I forgot to mention that before seeing the judge, we had to go through a mediation session. You can be certain that I knew every applicable law and was ready. However, I was caught off-guard when they introduced the concept known as Equity. The court mediators want everyone to compromise and cave in on values even if the right thing you want to happen is supported by law. In my scenario, the occupant behaved like a drama queen. I did learn that her spouse was a drunkard and decided to leave her as part of this mediation. Growing up with strong moral values, I would never have children out of wedlock, but in this scenario, Jennifer Downey had two children (both daughters) without a ring on the finger. She is somehow disabled and started to fake an anxiety attack.

In court, I responded to the judge that I, too, was disabled and had a letter from the Social Security Administration to prove it. The judge decided to shut down the conversation and entertained her sob story. I think I was a victim of classical male vs female dynamics and got taken advantage of because of my gender.

Connecticut loves to label itself the Constitution State, but my experience was

unconstitutional.