Centrix Management Co., LLC v. Valencia
2013 Conn. App. LEXIS 455
Conn. App. Ct.2013Background
- Centrix Management sued Valencia and Sanchez in a summary process action for nonpayment and possession of premises.
- The lease included a provision that the consumer could recover reasonable attorney’s fees; the landlord was the commercial party.
- Valencia moved to dismiss the action; the court dismissed the summary process for lack of unequivocal notice to quit, an order affirmed on appeal.
- Defendants later sought attorney’s fees under § 42-150bb; the court initially denied the fee request.
- During the appeal, the court ordered use and occupancy payments to be deposited with the court and later distributed; a separate damages award was also involved.
- The appellate court affirmed the fee award but reversed the distribution of use and occupancy payments under § 47a-35b, remanding for proper proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 42-150bb applies to landlord-tenant leases | Centrix argues the statute does not cover residential leases. | Valencia/Sanchez contend it does apply to leases and grants attorney’s fees to prevailing consumers. | Yes, § 42-150bb applies to residential landlord-tenant leases. |
| Whether the $9375 attorney’s fees award was excessive | Centrix claims the award exceeds reasonable fees under the contract terms. | Valencia argues the trial court properly exercised discretion in determining reasonable fees. | No abuse of discretion; fees were reasonable. |
| Whether the distribution of use and occupancy payments under § 47a-35b was proper | Distribution of half the funds to the defendants for attorney’s fees was improper because fees are not related to use and occupancy. | Defendants contend the distribution balanced competing interests and proceedings on appeal. | Improper distribution; reversed and remanded for proper allocation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rizzo Pool Co. v. Del Grosso, 240 Conn. 58 (1997) (fee size tied to contract terms; abuse of discretion standard)
- Traystman, Coric & Keramidas, P.C. v. Daigle, 282 Conn. 418 (2007) (postjudgment motion for § 42-150bb fees under Practice Book § 11-21)
- Rock Rimmon Grange #142, Inc. v. The Bible Speaks Ministries, Inc., 112 Conn. App. 1 (2009) (distribution of use and occupancy payments must relate to pendency of appeal)
- Brennan Associates v. RadioShack Corp., 140 Conn. App. 57 (2013) (application of use and occupancy distribution standards)
- Fraser v. ETA Assn., Inc., 41 Conn. Supp. 417 (1990) (courts addressing § 42-150bb in housing actions; fee considerations)
- Anderson v. Latimer Point Management Corp., 208 Conn. 256 (1988) (attorney’s fees availability under § 42-150bb related to subleases)