208 Conn.App. 75
Conn. App. Ct.2021Background:
- Parties signed a one-year lease (July 1, 2016–June 30, 2017) for a single-family home; tenant Herron paid a $12,730 security deposit.
- Herron bought another home months into the lease, offered to vacate and pay remaining rent, but agreed instead to continue paying rent while absent and to comply with lease obligations.
- At lease termination defendant Daniels provided an accounting withholding the entire deposit and additional sums for alleged damages and unpaid rent/fees.
- Herron sued for return of the deposit, statutory double damages under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 47a-21(d), CUTPA relief, conversion, and other claims; Daniels counterclaimed for damages exceeding the deposit.
- Trial court found many itemized deductions pretextual, found Daniels had not segregated the deposit and had used it personally, awarded double statutory damages (twice the full deposit), CUTPA damages and punitive damages, and denied Herron’s claims for rent recovery under § 47a-11a and money had and received.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether landlord violated §47a-21(d) so tenant is entitled to double damages | Herron: many deductions were pretextual; statute mandates double damages for landlord noncompliance | Daniels: she provided an itemized statement and some deductions were justified; doubling should be limited to portion wrongfully withheld | Court: many deductions were pretextual; statutory text requires twice the entire security deposit, so award of double the full deposit affirmed |
| Whether landlord’s handling of deposit and deductions violated CUTPA | Herron: misuse of deposit and fabricated deductions offended public policy and caused ascertainable loss | Daniels: she acted in good faith; not required to escrow deposits (fewer than four units); no ascertainable loss | Court: findings supported CUTPA violation—deposit used personally and pretextual deductions; §47a-21(k)(2) defense is criminal-only; Herron proved ascertainable loss |
| Whether punitive damages under CUTPA were appropriate and proportionate | Herron: punitive damages needed to deter continued statutory violations | Daniels: conduct was not reckless or malicious; claimed good-faith deductions; award excessive | Court: trial findings of reckless indifference and ongoing noncompliance supported punitive award; amount was not excessive given deterrence purpose |
| Whether Herron was entitled to return of rent paid after he vacated under §47a-11a or to recover under money had and received | Herron: he effectively abandoned and landlord failed to mitigate; rents paid after abandonment should be returned | Daniels: Herron never abandoned, he intended to comply and continued paying and storing items; payment obligation remained | Court: Herron did not abandon (expressed intent to comply, continued payments, left items, kept keys); money-had-and-received claim fails because payments were not made by mistake or without obligation |
Key Cases Cited
- Carrillo v. Goldberg, 141 Conn. App. 299 (Conn. App. 2013) (pretextual itemized deductions can trigger §47a-21(d) doubling)
- Carroll v. Yankwitt, 203 Conn. App. 449 (Conn. App. 2020) (statute requires landlord compliance with accounting formalities; court need only decide compliance, not reasonableness)
- Ulbrich v. Groth, 310 Conn. 375 (Conn. 2013) (standard for awarding punitive damages requires reckless indifference or wanton misconduct)
- Votto v. American Car Rental, Inc., 273 Conn. 478 (Conn. 2005) (evidence supporting recklessness/intentional wrongdoing can sustain punitive damages)
- Bridgeport Harbour Place I, LLC v. Ganim, 131 Conn. App. 99 (Conn. App. 2011) (CUTPA punitive damages oriented toward deterrence)
- Freeman v. A Better Way Wholesale Autos, Inc., 174 Conn. App. 649 (Conn. App. 2017) (ascertainable loss under CUTPA includes measurable deprivation even without exact dollar precision)
- Tarka v. Filipovic, 45 Conn. App. 46 (Conn. App. 1997) (whether mishandling deposit rises to CUTPA is fact-specific)