Altavista Investments, LLC v. Makeeva, 226 Conn.App. 175

Altavista Investments, LLC obtained a judgment of possession in a summary process (eviction) action against Leyla Makeeva et al. relating to a residential property in Greenwich, Connecticut.
The property in question was mortgaged, with Baotou Capital, LLC eventually becoming the holder of the note and the mortgage (including an assignment of leases and rents) through an assignment from Patriot Bank.
During the appeal of the eviction judgment, the defendants deposited use and occupancy payments with the court instead of an appeal bond, as allowed by statute.
Baotou Capital sought to intervene in the postjudgment proceedings to assert its claimed contractual right to the funds (use and occupancy payments) being held by the court.
The trial court denied Baotou’s motion to intervene, reasoning that Baotou was not a proper party because it lacked a possessory interest in the property and that its claim was contractual, not possessory.
Baotou appealed, arguing it was entitled to intervene as of right under the applicable statutory and common law tests for intervention due to its stake in the accumulated funds.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Baotou Capital could intervene as of right in the postjudgment proceedings to assert a claim to use and occupancy payments.	Baotou has no possessory interest and is not a proper party; claim is contractual only.	Initial objection (withdrawn): intervention premature; should await foreclosure and appeals.	Baotou had a right to intervene because it met all four elements for intervention as of right.
Whether the trial court properly denied intervention based solely on lack of possessory interest.	Party to eviction must have possessory interest.	Baotou is entitled to funds by assignment.	Error to focus only on possessory interest; the court should have considered Baotou’s interest in the funds.
Whether exclusion from the proceeding would impair Baotou's interest in the funds.	Not addressed.	Exclusion would impair Baotou's right to the money.	Exclusion would impair Baotou's substantial interest, as distribution is final.
Whether Baotou’s interest would be adequately protected by existing parties.	Yes.	No; interests adverse to both plaintiff and defendants.	Existing parties would not adequately protect Baotou’s interest; intervention required.

BNY Western Trust v. Roman, 295 Conn. 194 (Connecticut Supreme Court reiterates the four-factor test for intervention as of right)
King v. Sultar, 253 Conn. 429 (Denial of intervention as of right qualifies as a final judgment for appeal)
Rock Rimmon Grange #142, Inc. v. Bible Speaks Ministries, Inc., 112 Conn. App. 1 (Distribution of use and occupancy payments is a proceeding distinct from the eviction action)
MFS Associates, Inc. v. Autospa Realty Corp., 19 Conn. App. 32 (Use and occupancy disbursement is a separate statutory proceeding)