203 Conn.App. 449
Conn. App. Ct.2021Background:
- Carroll leased residential property from Yankwitt under two successive one-year leases; he paid an $8,000 security deposit under the second lease (term: June 1, 2012–May 31, 2013).
- On tenancy termination (May 31, 2013) Yankwitt inspected, emailed Carroll that day about damages, and sent a detailed email on June 14 listing seven items of damage, $1,422.86 remediation costs, a claimed $10,000 lost rent for June, and a $2,000 unpaid week of rent.
- On June 15 Carroll (by counsel) mailed his forwarding address via certified mail; USPS returned it ‘‘Unclaimed Unable to Forward.’’ Carroll sued for return of the deposit, interest, double damages under Conn. Gen. Stat. §47a-21(d)(2), unjust enrichment, and CUTPA; Yankwitt counterclaimed for damages.
- An attorney trial referee found Yankwitt’s June 14 email an inadequate accounting under §47a-21(d)(2), awarded Carroll the deposit, double damages, and found a CUTPA violation; the referee also awarded Yankwitt $1,506.45 on part of his counterclaim.
- The trial court adopted the referee’s report and later awarded Carroll attorney’s fees under CUTPA; both parties appealed (Carroll cross-appealed the fee/punitive-damages rulings).
- The Appellate Court reversed the double-damages award and the CUTPA judgment, vacated the CUTPA-based fee award, and affirmed the referee’s factual findings on the counterclaims regarding crawl-space mud and pro rata rent.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Carroll) | Defendant's Argument (Yankwitt) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Yankwitt violated §47a-21(d)(2) so Carroll gets double damages | Carroll: the June 14 email was an inadequate written accounting under §47a-21(d)(2) and triggers double damages | Yankwitt: the June 14 email sufficiently itemized nature and amount of damages within 30 days; amounts claimed exceeded deposit so no balance needed | Held: Yankwitt complied with §47a-21(d)(2); double damages reversed — the email adequately itemized damages that exceeded the deposit |
| Whether failure to comply with §47a-21(d)(2) (or the email) gives rise to per se CUTPA violation or otherwise | Carroll: failure to return/account for deposit constitutes CUTPA (per se) and/or the written statement was pretextual — CUTPA violation | Yankwitt: no CUTPA violation; he provided timely written statement and some claimed damages were proven | Held: CUTPA judgment reversed — plaintiff’s pleadings alleged only a per se CUTPA theory, but (1) the email complied with §47a-21(d)(2) and (2) there was no factual finding of pretext by the referee to support a CUTPA award |
| Whether Yankwitt proved $1,422.86 for crawl-space remediation (third counterclaim) | Carroll: disputed liability; argued insufficient proof of causation/timing | Yankwitt: remediation expense was incurred due to tenant-caused mud/water accumulation | Held: trial court properly adopted referee — no proof the condition arose during Carroll’s tenancy or that Carroll caused/was aware of it; award for this item denied |
| Whether Yankwitt proved $2,000 for unpaid week under first lease (pro rata rent) (fifth counterclaim) | Yankwitt: Carroll occupied May 25–31, 2012; pro rata rent owed for that week | Carroll: lease contained an open-ended commencement between May 15–31 and did not impose pro rata rent for that window | Held: referee/court correctly denied pro rata claim — lease language did not require pro rata payment for the open-ended commencement date; no $2,000 award |
| Whether Carroll was entitled to CUTPA attorney’s fees and punitive damages | Carroll: sought full fees and punitive damages under CUTPA following CUTPA judgment | Yankwitt: argued no CUTPA violation so no fees/punitive damages | Held: fee award and punitive-damages request vacated/declined because CUTPA judgment was reversed; no entitlement to CUTPA fees or punitive damages |
Key Cases Cited
- Hees v. Burke Construction, Inc., 961 A.2d 373 (Conn. 2009) (explains deference to attorney trial referees’ factual findings and that legal conclusions of referees are reviewable by the court)
- Pedrini v. Kiltonic, 154 A.3d 1037 (Conn. App. 2017) (holding that timely written notification of damages that exceed the deposit precludes double-damages recovery)
- Carrillo v. Goldberg, 61 A.3d 1164 (Conn. App. 2013) (distinguishes cases where landlords fabricated pretextual damage statements; fabricated accounts can justify double damages)
- Branford v. Santa Barbara, 988 A.2d 221 (Conn. 2010) (statutory punitive provisions should not be construed hypertechnically against the party facing penal consequences)
- Butts v. Bysiewicz, 5 A.3d 932 (Conn. 2010) (discusses mailbox rule presumption for properly mailed letters)