141 Conn. App. 299
Conn. App. Ct.2013Background
- Plaintiffs lease defendants' single-family home; security deposit $4,800 plus first and last month’s rent $4,800 each, totaling $9,600.
- Defendants commingled deposits with their funds and used deposits for personal expenses; after transfers, savings balance dwindled to about $1,812 and later to $19.38.
- Spring 2008 basement flood; plaintiffs deduct $941 from March 2008 rent for damages with defendants’ consent; defendants later claimed miscellaneous damages totaling over $6,700.
- Defendants’ damage accounting contained pretextual items; trial court found most claimed damages invalid except $231.80 in fuel expenses.
- Lease termination occurred with defendants giving early-termination option; plaintiffs vacated by August 22, 2008; forwarding address provided on Sept. 28, 2008.
- Trial court awarded $4,800 damages, $216.56 interest, $3,000 punitive damages, $2,500 attorney’s fees, and costs; declined double damages and certain statutory/interest claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Double damages under 47a-21(d)(2) | Deposit should be doubled due to nonreturn with accounting. | Existing accounting within timeframe excuses double damages. | Court erred; entitlement to double deposit damages established. |
| Interest on security deposit under 47a-21(i)(1) | Interest computed on full $9,600; correct per statute. | Interest on $4,800 only. | Interest awarded on $4,800 was incorrect; should be on $9,600. |
| Treble damages for statutory theft under 52-564 | If statutory theft found, treble damages should apply. | Court found no statutory theft. | Treble damages not awarded; no statutory theft found. |
| Punitive damages under CUTPA and related procedures | Award insufficient; request for posttrial punitive damages hearing and discovery should be granted. | Award within discretion; no posttrial hearing or additional discovery warranted. | Punitive award upheld; no posttrial hearing or discovery required. |
| Attorney’s fees under CUTPA | Court undervalued attorney’s fees given hours and rates. | Discretionary reduction appropriate. | Court abused discretion in reducing attorney’s fees; remanded to recalculate. |
Key Cases Cited
- American Diamond Exchange, Inc. v. Alpert, 101 Conn. App. 83 (Conn. App. 2007) (plenary review of damages; abuse of discretion standard)
- Advanced Financial Services, Inc. v. Associated Appraisal Services, Inc., 79 Conn. App. 22 (Conn. App. 2003) (punitive damages discretion under CUTPA)
- Jacques All Trades Corp. v. Brown, 42 Conn. App. 124 (Conn. App. 1996) (attorney’s fees; CUTPA context)
- Laudano v. New Haven, 58 Conn. App. 819 (Conn. App. 2000) (Johnson factors for attorney’s fee determinations)
- Lydall, Inc. v. Ruschmeyer, 282 Conn. 209 (Conn. 2007) (posttrial damages hearings; bifurcation principles)
- Stratford v. A. Secondino & Son, Inc., 133 Conn. App. 737 (Conn. App. 2012) (discretion in awarding prejudgment interest)