210 Conn.App. 420
Conn. App. Ct.2022Background
- Parties executed a written lease for a furnished single‑family home; a signed move‑in inspection listed certain "luxury items" and agreed liquidated damages for them.
- Lease required a $13,000 security deposit; defendants paid an initial payment but disputed exact allocation; court treated the lease amount as controlling.
- At tenancy termination (August 2015) plaintiff sent a written accounting within 30 days stating the deposit was fully expended and alleging over $50,000 in damage to listed items.
- Plaintiff sued in December 2015 for breach and damages; defendants counterclaimed under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 47a‑21 (security deposit statute) and CUTPA.
- Bench trial occurred in October 2019; trial court found $33,100.77 in damages beyond normal wear and tear, subtracted a $7,500 deposit balance, and entered judgment for plaintiff for $25,600.77 (plus interest); court rejected defendants’ counterclaim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Damages calculation — failure to account for age/previous wear | Freidburg: evidence (inspection list, photos, receipts) supports damages; wear/age insignificant given scope of harm | Kurtz: court should have determined pre‑tenancy condition/age and apportioned wear and tear | Court: affirmed damages; record (inspection, photos, receipts) supported findings and preexisting wear was insignificant relative to documented damage |
| Amount of security deposit paid | Freidburg: lease states $13,000 deposit; defendants offered no documentary proof of larger payment | Kurtz: initial payment amount disputed; defendants claimed they paid more than lease amount | Court: found deposit was $13,000 per signed lease; defendants produced no receipts/bank records, finding not clearly erroneous |
| Compliance with §47a‑21(d)(2) — timely written accounting and application of deposit | Freidburg: provided written itemized statement within 30 days and a statement of damages showing repair costs exceeded remaining deposit | Kurtz: plaintiff failed to comply with statutory accounting rules and thus liable for twice the deposit | Court: plaintiff timely provided the required statement; repair costs exceeded balance so deductions were proper; defendants’ §47a‑21(d)(2) claim fails |
| Escrow requirement (§47a‑21(h)) and CUTPA claim / ascertainable loss | Freidburg: even if escrow rule was breached, conduct did not amount to CUTPA violation and defendants showed no ascertainable loss | Kurtz: failure to keep deposit in escrow (and other §47a‑21 violations) constitutes CUTPA violation and merits relief | Court: defendants failed to prove §47a‑21(h) violation; even if violation existed it was not shown to be unfair/deceptive under CUTPA and defendants offered no evidence of ascertainable loss — CUTPA claim fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Carroll v. Yankwitt, 203 Conn. App. 449 (explains standard of review for trial court's damages calculation)
- Autry v. Hosey, 200 Conn. App. 795 (sets forth clearly erroneous standard for factual findings)
- Pedrini v. Kiltonic, 170 Conn. App. 343 (interprets §47a‑21(d)(2) timing and remedy requirements)
- Fitzpatrick v. Scalzi, 72 Conn. App. 779 (deference to trial court factfinding and credibility determinations)
- Herron v. Daniels, 208 Conn. App. 75 (discusses CUTPA ascertainable loss requirement and standards for unfairness)
- Scrivani v. Vallombroso, 99 Conn. App. 645 (explains §42‑110g(a) damages/ascertainable loss threshold under CUTPA)
- Tarka v. Filipovic, 45 Conn. App. 46 (refuses to treat inadvertent §47a‑21(h) escrow breaches as per se CUTPA violations)