170 Conn. App. 343
Conn. App. Ct.2017Background
- Tenant Lacey Pedrini leased residential property from landlord Eleanor Kiltonic from Oct 2010–July 2012, paying a $1590 security deposit.
- Pedrini vacated on July 20, 2012 and forwarded her new address and the keys; Kiltonic sent a letter within 30 days claiming damages and retaining the deposit as partial payment.
- Kiltonic’s itemized damages totaled $4,526.99; the deposit plus interest totaled $1,622.36.
- Trial court concluded Kiltonic complied with the statutory timing and notice requirements under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 47a-21(d)(2), returned part of the deposit, and awarded Pedrini $1,094.81 after deducting $527.55 for water/sewer bills and exterior cleanup.
- Pedrini sought double statutory damages under § 47a-21(d)(2), CUTPA remedies (punitive damages and attorney’s fees), and challenged the $527.55 deduction.
- Trial court denied double damages, CUTPA relief, and accepted the $527.55 deduction; Pedrini appealed. The Appellate Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Pedrini's Argument | Kiltonic's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether double damages under § 47a-21(d)(2) were required because deposit was wrongfully withheld | Kiltonic’s withholding was wrongful because most claimed damages were not proven; statute’s use of “shall” mandates double damages | Kiltonic argued she complied with § 47a-21(d)(2) by timely sending the damage notification and there was no balance to return | Held: No double damages — court found Kiltonic timely provided required notice within 30 days and compliance with statutory scheme, so double-damage sanction did not apply |
| Whether Kiltonic’s conduct violated CUTPA so as to allow punitive damages and attorney’s fees | Failure to comply with § 47a-21(d)(2) (and wrongful retention) is a per se CUTPA violation | Kiltonic argued her conduct complied with § 47a-21(d)(2) and did not constitute unfair/deceptive practice | Held: No CUTPA violation — court found no unfair or deceptive practice and no substantial injury to tenant; no punitive damages or fees awarded |
| Whether deducting $527.55 from the deposit was improper because defendant’s special defenses were defaulted | Pedrini argued deduction functioned as an impermissible setoff/counterclaim given defaulted special defenses | Kiltonic argued lease obligated tenant to pay utilities and exterior maintenance; deposit may be withheld for tenant’s failure to perform under § 47a-21(d)(1) | Held: Deduction valid — court credited evidence of unpaid water/sewer bills and exterior cleanup; deduction is proper under § 47a-21(d)(1) as damages for tenant’s breach |
Key Cases Cited
- Kufferman v. Fairfield University, 5 Conn. App. 118 (Conn. App. 1985) (explains statutory two-step test under § 47a-21(d)(2) for awarding double damages)
- Carrillo v. Goldberg, 141 Conn. App. 299 (Conn. App. 2013) (clarifies compliance focus of § 47a-21(d)(2) and that sanction turns on statutory compliance, not correctness of claimed damages)
- Conaway v. Prestia, 191 Conn. 484 (Conn. 1983) (recognizes CUTPA applies to residential landlord-tenant transactions)
- Scrivani v. Vallombroso, 99 Conn. App. 645 (Conn. App. 2007) (elements required to prevail under CUTPA: prohibited act and resulting injury)
- Johnson v. Mazza, 80 Conn. App. 155 (Conn. App. 2003) (explains security deposit is tenant’s property held in trust and deductible only for tenant-caused damages)
- Expressway Associates II v. Friendly Ice Cream Corp. of Connecticut, 218 Conn. 474 (Conn. 1991) (landlord’s property damage claims typically arise as damages or setoff/counterclaim)
- Teresa T. v. Ragaglia, 272 Conn. 734 (Conn. 2005) (interpretive guidance on when statutory “shall” is mandatory vs. directory)
- Statewide Grievance Committee v. Rozbicki, 219 Conn. 473 (Conn. 1991) (test for mandatory vs. directory statutory provisions)