MARC HERRON v. LINDA DANIELS
AC 43560
Connecticut Appellate Court
Argued April 8—officially released October 5, 2021
Bright, C. J., and Prescott and Lavine, Js.
**********************************************************
The “officially released” date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the “officially released” date appearing in the opinion.
All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the advance release version of an opinion and the latest version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest version is to be considered authoritative.
The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut.
**********************************************************
Syllabus
The plaintiff sought to recover the security deposit he had paid to the defendant landlord in connection with a one year lease of a single-family home. A few months after the start of the lease term, thе plaintiff purchased his own home and attempted to terminate the lease, offering to vacate the premises and pay the remaining rent due under the agreement. The defendant refused the offer, and the plaintiff agreed to continue to pay rent and to fulfill his other obligations under the lease throughout the remainder of its term, despite vacating the premises. After the leasehold expired, the defendant sent the plaintiff an accounting of the security deposit, indicating that no portion of it would be returned due to unpaid rent and fees due under the lease and expenses incurred to repair alleged damages to the premises, and that the plaintiff owed the defendant additional funds for damages that exceeded the amount of the security deposit. The trial court found in favor of the plaintiff in part on his complaint and on the defendant‘s counterclaim, and the defendant appealed and the plaintiff cross appealed to this court. Held:
- The trial court did not err when it awarded the plaintiff double damages as a result of the defendant‘s failure to return a portion of the security deposit: the trial court‘s determination that certain of the defendant‘s charges for damages to the premises were pretextual was not erroneous, as the court credited the plaintiff‘s testimony that he had hired a cleaning service after he vacated the premises and found the defendant‘s testimony relating to the claimed repair expenses unconvincing; moreover, although the trial court‘s finding thаt the charge for the replacement of the furnace filter was pretextual was erroneous, such finding did not undermine its conclusions regarding the disputed charges nor did it impact the judgment rendered; furthermore, the trial court‘s award of statutory damages equal to double the entire amount of the plaintiff‘s security deposit was required by the plain language of the applicable statute (
§ 47a-21 (d) (2) ), even though a portion of the security deposit was properly withheld. - The trial court did not err when it concluded that the defendant violated the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA) (
§ 42-110a et seq. ): the trial court‘s finding that the defendant engaged in unethical behavior that violated the public policy of the applicable statute (§ 47a-21 (d) (2) ) by withdrawing portions of the security deposit for her personal use and by assessing certain itemized damages as a pretext to avoid having to return the security deposit following the termination of the lease was supported by the record; moreover, the defendant‘s claim that she was not required to place the security deposit into an escrow account because she had fewer than four rental units was unavailing because the applicable statute (§ 47a-21 (k) (2) ) provided an affirmative defense only to criminal penalties for the failure to maintain an escrow account, not to similar civil actions; furthermore, the evidence in the record demonstrated that the plaintiff suffered an ascertainable loss as a result of the defendant‘s withholding of the portion of the security deposit that was legitimately owed to him. - The trial court did not abuse its discretion by awarding punitive damages to the plaintiff: the trial court‘s findings that the defendant did not act in good faith when she assessed pretextual damages to the plaintiff and failed to place the security deposit into an escrow account and that her actions caused substantial injury to the plaintiff were not clearly erroneous and were sufficient to support an award of punitive damages; moreover, the trial court based the award on the defendant‘s failure to comply with her statutory obligations as a landlord, not on her breach of contract; furthermore, the amount awarded was not excessive in light of the amount in dispute, the defendant‘s conduct, and the trial court‘s stated purpose in making the award, which was to provide the defendant with an incentive to comply with security deposit laws and to protect her future tenants.
- The trial court did not err in holding that the plaintiff was not entitled to a return of the rental payments that he made after vacating the premises: the trial court correctly determined that, pursuant to the applicable statute (
§ 47a-11a ), the plaintiff did not abandon the premises prior to the end of the lease term, as he explicitly stated that he intended to fulfill his obligations under the lease, he continued to pay rent and landscaping costs for the property throughout the lease term, and he did not return the keys to the premises or request the return of his security deposit until the lease term expired; accordingly, there was no early terminatiоn of the lease. - The trial court did not err in denying the plaintiff‘s common-law claim for money had and received: the trial court‘s determination that the plaintiff was obligated to make monthly rental payments in accordance with the terms of the lease was supported by the record, which demonstrated that the plaintiff signed the lease, indicated that he would continue to abide by its terms, and failed to repudiate the lease during his tenancy; moreover, the record supported the trial court‘s conclusion that a duty to mitigate damages never arose under
§ 47a-11a and, accordingly, the plaintiff failed to prove that he had paid his monthly rent by mistake and that he was free from any moral or legal obligation to make the payments.
Procedural History
Action for, inter alia, the return of a security deposit, and for other relief, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Fairfield, Housing Session at Bridgeport, where the defendant filed a counterclaim; thereafter, the matter was tried to the court, Spader, J.; judgment for the plaintiff in part on the complaint and for the plaintiff on the counterclaim, from which the defendant appealed and the plaintiff cross appealed to this
Alan R. Spirer, for the appellant-cross appellee (defendant).
Anthony J. Musto, for the appellee-cross appellant (plaintiff).
Opinion
BRIGHT, C. J. In this landlord-tenant dispute over a security deposit, the defendant landlord, Linda Daniels, appeals from the judgment of the trial court, rendered following a trial to the court, in favor of the plaintiff tenant, Marc Herron. On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court erred when it (1) awarded the plaintiff double damages pursuant to
The plaintiff cross appeals claiming that the court erred in (1) holding that he was not entitled to a return of certain rental payments because, pursuant to
The record reveals the following relevant facts and procedural history. On May 6, 2016, the parties entered into a written lease agreement for the period of July 1, 2016 to June 30, 2017, for a monthly rental rate of $6365 plus $435 in monthly common charges for the use and occupancy of a single-family home located at 161 Morning Dew Circle in Fairfield (premises). The plaintiff provided a security deposit to the defendant in the amount of $12,730. A few months later, the plaintiff purchased a home for his family and attempted to negotiate an early termination of the lease by offering to vacate the premises and to pay the balance due under the lease.
The defendant, however, demanded that the plaintiff pay an additional $1500 each month for costs associated with the lease, including utilities, lawn care, and property maintenance. In response, the plaintiff sent an e-mail to the defendant‘s attorney, stating: “I will just continue the lease as is. I will not be present but will adhere to the conditions of the lease. I will provide the absolute minimal yet compliant services to the home. . . . I will pay monthly rent. I will leave water and electric on and pay those bills. I will keep thermostat at minimal level to ensure no freezing occurs. . . . I will keep the right to have minimal furniture in the home to then use when I choose.” The plaintiff continued to provide some maintenance and, except for the final month, continued to meet his monthly rental obligations.
The leasehold expired on June 30, 2017, and the plaintiff timely provided the defendant with a forwarding address so that she could return his security deposit, less the unpaid June, 2017 rent. The defendant responded with an accounting of the security deposit, indicating that no portion of the security deposit would be returned and that the plaintiff owed the defendant $1834.79. The accounting alleged that the June, 2017 rent ($6365), association fees ($435), and associated late fees ($250) were not paid and included a number of charges, totaling $7516.85, for repairs to remedy alleged damages to the premises.
The plaintiff commenced this civil action in May, 2018, seeking the return of his security deposit. The operative complaint
On October 21, 2019, following a one day trial to the court and thе submission of posttrial briefs, the court issued a memorandum of decision in which it found in favor of the plaintiff on his claims for breach of contract, violation of
In light of its findings, the court concluded that the defendant had breached the lease agreement by withholding more of the security deposit than that to which she was entitled and concluded that the plaintiff was entitled to damages on his breach of contract claim in the amount of $5300.08 and attorney‘s fees of 15 percent of the amount of the damages.2 The court nevertheless declined to award the plaintiff any damages on his breach of contract claim because it was awarding the plaintiff greater damages and attorney‘s fees on his other claims.
Specifically, on the plaintiff‘s second count, which alleged a violation of
As to the plaintiff‘s third count alleging a CUTPA violation, the court held that the defendant‘s mishandling of the security deposit and her improper withholding of a portion of the security deposit were “inexcusable and indefensible and [left] the court with no choice but to award CUTPA and punitive damages to the plaintiff in this matter.” The court concluded that it would not duplicate the damages award that it had rendered on the plaintiff‘s second count, but it awarded the plaintiff $19,867.13 in punitive damages, $12,625 in attorney‘s fees, and $811.92 in costs.
As to the plaintiff‘s fourth count alleging conversion, the court concluded that a conversion had occurred but that any damages that it might award would be duplicative, so it awarded none. As to the plaintiff‘s fifth count alleging statutory theft, the court concluded that “the defendant [did not have] the requisite specific intent to raise her conduct to a finding of statutory theft toward the plaintiff. She was negligent and careless with the plaintiff‘s security deposit, but the court does not find that she committed a statutory theft.”
As to the plaintiff‘s sixth count alleging that he was entitled to a return of a portion of the rent he paid after he moved out of the premises because the defendant had failed to use reasonable efforts to rent the premises pursuant to
Finally, because it had concluded that the defendant had failed to prove that she properly had kept the entirety of the security deposit, the court rendered judgment for the plaintiff on the defendant‘s counterclaim.
The defendant appealed and the plaintiff cross appealed.
I
THE DEFENDANT‘S APPEAL
A
The defendant‘s first claim is that the trial court erred in awarding the plaintiff double damages pursuant to
Second, the defendant argues that, even if the court‘s finding of pretext was not
In response, the plaintiff argues that the trial court‘s finding that almost all of the defendant‘s charges for damages to the premises were pretextual is not clearly erroneous. He further contends that the court‘s award of statutory damages equal to double the entire amount of the plaintiff‘s security deposit is required by the plain language of
“We accord plenary review to the court‘s legal basis for its damages award.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Pedrini v. Kiltonic, 170 Conn. App. 343, 348-49, 154 A.3d 1037, cert. denied, 325 Conn. 903, 155 A.3d 1270 (2017). “The court‘s calculation under that legal basis is a question of fact, which we review under the clearly erroneous standard. . . . Moreover, to the extent that we must construe the salient provisions of the security deposit statute, our review is plenary.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Carroll v. Yankwitt, 203 Conn. App. 449, 465, 250 A.3d 696 (2021).
1
We begin by addressing the defendant‘s argument that the court erroneously determined that she violated
”
Claims of pretext are questions of fact subject to the clearly erroneous standard of review. See Carroll v. Yankwitt, supra, 203 Conn. App. 481. “In applying the clearly erroneous standard to the findings of a trial court, we keep constantly in mind that our function is not to decide factual issues de novo. . . . Moreover, [i]t is within the province of the trial court, when sitting as the fact finder, to weigh the evidence presentеd and determine the credibility and effect to be given the evidence. . . . Credibility must be assessed . . . not by reading the cold printed record, but by observing firsthand the witness’ conduct, demeanor and attitude.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) White v. Latimer Point Condominium Assn., Inc., 191 Conn. App. 767, 775–76, 216 A.3d 830 (2019).
The parties presented conflicting testimony as to many of the defendant‘s itemized deductions. The defendant testified that she hired a cleaning service due to the uncleanliness of the premises, that the charge for the furnace filter replacement was a fair and reasonable charge, and that the plaintiff failed to maintain the landscaping of the premises. The defendant also testified that parts of the vacuum hose were missing after the plaintiff vacated the premises and that the carpet needed to be replaced due to an animal urine stain that she initially had noticed in July, 2017, after it was brought to her attention by a painter. The defendant stated that she had not noticed the stain prior to the painter bringing it to her attention despite having paid professional cleaners, who cleaned the premises at some point between April 30 and June 10, 2017. The defendant also testified that she did not take any photographs of the claimed damages.
On the other hand, the plaintiff testified that the condition of the premises was “almost spotless” prior to his departure in October, 2016, because he had hired a cleaner to clean the premises. He also testified that he hired a landscaping company that regularly maintained the landscaping and the lawn through the spring of 2017. The plaintiff stated that when the defendant contacted him about an issue with the landscaping of the premises, he had the landscaping company ameliorate the issue the following day. He also testified that he did not recall seeing a vacuum hose and that he had a dog but it did not urinate in the premises. The plaintiff stated that he was unaware of any plumbing issues other than the replacement of a gasket and a toilet, which he had replaced on his own accord.
Notably, the plaintiff did not dispute certain charges as justified deductions, including the charges for the June, 2017 rent, the association fees, the late fee, the furnace filter, the irrigаtion system, and the dehumidifier. In addition, both parties testified that there were HVAC issues predating the plaintiff‘s tenancy.
The court also had before it undisputed evidence that the defendant did not segregate the plaintiff‘s security deposit and used it regularly during the term of the lease to pay personal expenses.3 That evidence
In its memorandum of decision, the trial court made the following relevant findings of fact. The court found that the June, 2017 rent and association fees, late charges, irrigation system repair, and the replacement of the dehumidifier were legitimate deductions from the security deposit. Thus, the court found that charges amounting to $7429.92 were justified deductions from the plaintiff‘s security deposit. The court, however, found that the remaining deductions were not proven by a fair preponderance of the evidence as damages incurred during the tenancy and that the deductions were pretextual.
In particular, the court credited the plaintiff‘s testimony that he had hired a cleaning service when he vacated the premises and found that there was no evidence that the dеfendant‘s subsequent cleaning was for conditions beyond ordinary cleaning to re-let the premises. The court did not credit the defendant‘s evidence with regard to the replacement of the carpet on the stairs, finding that the carpet replacement was “wholly fabricated.” Additionally, the court did not credit the defendant‘s evidence concerning the claimed charges for lawn maintenance, landscaping, HVAC issues, vacuum hose replacement, and plumbing maintenance. Furthermore, the court found that the defendant was “so unconvincing in her testimony that [the court had] to consider [the remaining charges] pretextual. [The defendant] was only claiming these damages to avoid returning the security deposit.” The court determined that the defendant “knowingly included these items in her list because, as her bank statements demonstrate, she was not properly safeguarding her tenants’ [security] deposits, and quite frankly, the court believes she had no intention of ever returning the security deposit to the plaintiff.”
The defendant argues that the court‘s finding of pretext was clearly erroneous because she testified that the premises was in “pristine condition” when the plaintiff took possession, the repairs she undertook at the end of the lease term were necessary to restore the premises to that condition, she paid for each repair she charged to the plaintiff and those charges were reasonable and authorized by the lease agreement. Although the defendant acknowledges that the court found her testimоny unconvincing, she nonetheless argues that a finding of pretext was unwarranted
“The sifting and weighing of evidence is peculiarly the function of the trier. [N]othing in our law is more elementary than that the trier is the final judge of the credibility of witnesses and of the weight to be accorded their testimony. . . . The trier is free to accept or reject, in whole or in part, the testimony offered by either party.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Rollar Construction & Demolition, Inc. v. Granite Rock Associates, LLC, 94 Conn. App. 125, 132, 891 A.2d 133 (2006). We are not in a position to question the court‘s credibil-ity finding. “[The trier of fact] is free to juxtapose conflicting versions of events and determine which is more credible.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Benjamin v. Norwalk, 170 Conn. App. 1, 25, 153 A.3d 669 (2016).
As the defendant acknowledges, the court did not credit her testimony regarding the legitimacy of the vast majority of the claimed repair expenses. In fact, the court found her testimony so unconvincing that it led the court to infer that the charges were pretextual. Our review of the record reflects additional support for this conclusion, with one small exception, in the testimony of the plaintiff and the defendant‘s admitted personal use of the plaintiff‘s security deposit. The one exception is the $100 furnace filter replacement charge claimed by the defendant. The plaintiff testified that he accepted the furnace filter charge as an item of damage and did not dispute the validity of that charge. Thus, because the record does not contain any conflicting evidence as to whether the charge for the replacement of the furnace filter was pretextual, the trial court‘s finding that this charge was pretextual is clearly erroneous.
“[W]here . . . some of the facts found [by the trial court] are clearly erroneous and others are supported by the evidence, we must examine the clearly erroneous findings to see whether they were harmless, not only in isolation, but also taken as a whole. . . . If, when taken as a whole, they undermine appellate confidence in the court‘s [fact-finding] process, a new hearing is required.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Autry v. Hosey, 200 Conn. App. 795, 801, 239 A.3d 381 (2020).
After carefully reviewing the record, we conclude that the court‘s erroneous finding regarding the furnace filter does not undermine our confidence in the court‘s determination that the disputed charges were pretextual because the record contains sufficient evidence to support the court‘s finding. Removing the $100 charge from the court‘s calculation of the portion of the security deposit improperly withheld by the defendant, there was ample evidence to support the rest of the overcharges totaling more than $5000. Furthermore, because the court‘s damages award was based on its calculation of statutory damages for a failure to return a security deposit in violation of
2
We next address the defendant‘s claim that, even if the court‘s finding that certain items deducted from the plaintiff‘s security
Resolution of this claim requires us to construe the language of the statute. Consequently, as previously stated, our review is plenary. See Carroll v. Yankwitt, supra, 203 Conn. App. 465. Furthermore, when construing the language of a statute, ”
“By its plain language,
“[F]or purposes of determining whether to award double damages under [
Nonetheless, “[t]he language of the statute allows for landlords to deduct from a tenant‘s security deposit actual damages, not pretextual damages.” (Emphasis added.) Carrillo v. Goldberg, supra, 141 Conn. App. 310. A landlord does not satisfy the statutory requirements of
In the present case, the court found that a portion of the defendant‘s claimed damages was pretextual. Thus, the defendant did not comply with the statutory requirements of
The defendant‘s argument that the statutory damages should be limited to double the portion of the security deposit wrongfully withheld ignores the plain language of the statute. The statute plainly and unambiguously defines the statutory damages as “twice the amount of any security deposit paid . . . .” (Emphasis added.)
Furthermore, that the defendant views the application of the statute to the facts of this case to be “manifestly unfair” is irrelevant to our analysis. As this court has previously noted,
B
Next, the defendant claims that the court erred in concluding that she violated CUTPA by (1) making pretextual deductions from the plaintiff‘s security deposit and (2) failing to safeguard the plaintiff‘s security deposit in an escrow account. The defendant argues that her itemization of damages was based on a good faith belief that she had suffered damages as a result of the plaintiff‘s failure to fulfill his obligation under the lease agreement to maintain the premises. In addition, the defendant argues that she was not required to maintain the security deposit in a separate escrow account, that even if she was, her failure to do so did not constitute a CUTPA violation, and that the plaintiff failed to prove that he suffered an ascertainable loss due to her conduct. We disagree.
“[
In its memorandum of decision, the court found that the defendant had “engaged in unethical, unscrupulous activity in violation of a stated public policy set forth by the Connecticut legislature and caused a substantial injury to the plaintiff.” The court concluded that the defendant‘s failure to safeguard the plaintiff‘s security deposit, her utilization of the security deposit for her own personal purposes, and her claiming of pretеxtual damages to avoid complying with
“It is well settled that whether a defendant‘s acts constitute . . . deceptive or unfair trade practices under CUTPA, is a question of fact for the trier, to which, on appellate review, we accord our customary deference.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Carroll v. Yankwitt, supra, 203 Conn. App. 472.
In the present case, the evidence in the record supports the court‘s determination that the defendant engaged in unethical and unscrupulous activity that clearly offended the public policy of thе security deposit statute. In particular, the evidence supports the court‘s findings that the defendant utilized the plaintiff‘s security deposit for her personal use and assessed certain itemized damages as pretext to avoid complying with
The defendant argues that the court should not have relied on such evidence to find a CUTPA violation because she was not required to maintain the security deposit in a segregated escrow account and her failure to do so does not constitute a CUTPA violation. We are not persuaded.
“Whether a defendant is subject to CUTPA and its applicability . . . are questions of law. . . . [If] a question of law is presented, review of the trial court‘s ruling is plenary, and this court must determine whether the trial court‘s conclusions are legally and logically correct, and whether they find support in the facts appearing in the record.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Id.
The defendant argues that
We also are unpersuaded by the defendant‘s argument that a violation of
In the present case, the court specifically found that the defendant‘s conduct rose to the level of a CUTPA violation. Furthermore, the court in this case did not conclude that the defendant‘s violation of her obligations with respect to the plaintiff‘s security deposit was the result of ignorance. To the contrary, the court concluded that the defendant, who “is a former Realtor and has been involved in multiple rental relationships on her properties,” showed “utter indifference to her obligations as a landlord . . . .” The court further noted that the defendant‘s violations of
Moreover, as discussed in part I A 1 of this opinion, the evidence in the record supports the trial court‘s determination that certain itemized damages assessed by the defendant were pretextual. The defendant does not argue that pretextual charges cannot form the basis of a CUTPA violation. Instead, she repeats her argument that the disputed charges were not pretextual and that this case is nothing more than a contract dispute between the parties over the reasonableness of the repairs the defendant made and for which she charged the plaintiff. Given our conclusion in part I A 1 of this opinion, the defendant‘s argument is without merit.
“The ascertainable loss requirement [of
“Of course, a plaintiff still must marshal some evidence of ascertainable loss in support of her CUTPA allegations, and a failure to do so is indeed fatal to a CUTPA claim . . . .”
“A plaintiff also must prove that the ascertainable loss was caused by, or a result of, the prohibited act.
In the present case, the evidence in the record supports the court‘s finding that the defendant assessed pretextual damages to the plaintiff. This evidence also demonstrates that the plaintiff suffered an ascertainable loss as a result of the withholding of the portion of the security deposit that was legitimately owed to him. See Freeman v. A Better Way Wholesale Autos, Inc., 174 Conn. App. 649, 667, 166 A.3d 857 (“Whenever a consumer has received something other than what [the consumer] bargained for, [the consumer] has suffered a loss of money or property. That loss is ascertainable if it is measurable even though the precise amount of the loss is not known.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.)), cert. denied, 327 Conn. 927, 171 A.3d 60 (2017); see also Larobina v. Home Depot, USA, Inc., 76 Conn. App. 586, 597, 821 A.2d 283 (2003) (concluding that trial court improperly concluded that plaintiff failed to prove ascertainable loss because “plaintiff did receive something other than that for which he had bargained; he bargained to have carpeting installed at a
Consequently, we conclude that the trial court properly found that the defendant violated CUTPA.
C
The defendant‘s final claim is that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding punitive damages in the amount of $19,867.13. The defendant argues that her conduct did not warrant an award of punitive damages. We disagree.
We begin our analysis with the standard of review. “Awarding punitive damages and attorney‘s fees under CUTPA is discretionary;
“We note also that the CUTPA statutes do not provide a method for determining punitive damages . . . .” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Carrillo v. Gold-berg, supra, 141 Conn. App. 313. Additionally, “[u]nlike punitive damages under Connecticut common law, punitive damages under CUTPA are focused on deterrence, rather than mere compensation.” Bridgeport Harbour Place I, LLC v. Ganim, 131 Conn. App. 99, 140, 30 A.3d 703, cert. granted, 303 Conn. 904, 31 A.3d 1179 (2011) (appeal withdrawn January 27, 2012), and cert. granted, 303 Conn. 905, 31 A.3d 1180 (2011) (appeal withdrawn January 26, 2012).6
In the present case, the trial court awarded punitive damages on the basis of the “defendant‘s indifference to the law when engaged in this transaction” and “her continued inexcusable failure to segregate her current security deposits from her personal accounts after the commencement of this action, when at the latest she should have learned what the law is.” (Emphasis omitted.) The court then awarded punitive damages in the amount of $19,867.13, as determined by the amount of the security deposit of $12,730 and pretextual charges of $7137.13. As stated previously in this opinion, the court also provided the following basis for its award of punitive damages under CUTPA: “The [trial] court has concerns for her current tenants that their funds may not be secured. This utter indifference to her obligations as a landlord, when taken in context with what the court [found] were pretextual damages being assessed to the plaintiff, is inexcusable and indefensible and leaves the court with no choice but to award CUTPA and punitive damages to thе plaintiff in this matter.” Additionally, the court stated that the defendant “must
In her principal brief, the defendant advances several arguments in support of her claim that the trial court erred in awarding punitive damages. The defendant argues that her actions constituted a good faith claim as defined under
First, the defendant argues that her actions constituted a good faith claim as defined under
The defendant, here, fails to explain how this statutory provision is applicable to her claim that the trial court erred in awarding punitive damages. The jurisdictional parameters of the banking commissioner are not at issue in the present case. Furthermore, the court concluded that the defendant‘s claims were not made in good faith when it found that certain itemized damages assessed by the defendant were fabricated and pretextual and that her handling of the security deposits of the plaintiff and other tenants showed an utter indifference to her obligations as a landlord. See Cianci v. Originalwerks, LLC, 126 Conn. App. 18, 22, 16 A.3d 705 (“[w]e will not disturb the court‘s finding unless it is clearly erroneous“), cert. denied, 301 Conn. 901, 17 A.3d 1043 (2011).
Second, the defendant argues that the plaintiff did not suffer an ascertainable loss as a result of the defendant‘s actions. As stated in part I B of this opinion, the plaintiff suffered an ascertainable loss due to the defendant‘s withholding of the plaintiff‘s
Third, the defendant argues that none of her actions involved a reckless indifference to the plaintiff‘s rights or an intentional and wanton violation of the plaintiff‘s rights warranting an award of punitive damages. We disagree.
Here, the court found, and the record supports, that the defendant failed to comply with
The defendant‘s fourth argument is that punitive damages are ordinarily not recoverable for breach of contract. The punitive damages award in this case, however, was not based on a simple breach of contract finding but, rather, was based on a CUTPA violation for unscrupulous conduct. The court clearly based its аward of punitive damages on the defendant‘s actions in failing to comply with her statutory obligations as a landlord.
Finally, the defendant argues that the trial court‘s award of punitive damages was excessive. The defendant contends that the award of punitive damages is excessive “by any objective determination.” We note that, “[w]hile the CUTPA statutes do not provide a method for determining punitive damages, courts generally award punitive damages in amounts equal to actual damages or multiples of the actual damages.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Bridgeport Harbour Place I, LLC v. Ganim, supra, 131 Conn. App. 139-40.
In the present case, the trial court determined the award of punitive damages by adding together the amount of the security deposit and the pretextual charges, resulting in CUTPA punitive damages of $19,867.13. This amount was approximately one and one-half times the security deposit paid by the plaintiff and less than the statutory damages the court awarded pursuant to
In sum, on review of the record, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding punitive damages to the plaintiff. The court based its determination on evidence that showed that the defendant failed to properly safeguard the plaintiff‘s security deposit and then attempted to avoid returning the security deposit to the plaintiff by fabricating pretextual charges. Furthermore, the court clearly articulated that the purpose of the punitive damages award was to deter the defendant from continuing her improper use of her tenants’ security deposits and to protect future tenants from the defendant improperly managing their security deposits. See Bridgeport Harbour Place I, LLC v. Ganim, supra, 131 Conn. App. 140 (“[u]nlike punitive damages under Connecticut common law, punitive damages under CUTPA are focused on deterrence, rather than mere compensation“).
II
THE PLAINTIFF‘S CROSS APPEAL
In his cross appeal, the plaintiff claims that the trial court erred in holding that he was not entitled, pursuant to
A
The plaintiff first claims that the court erred by not awarding him damages for rent he paid after he moved out of the premises and the defendant had the opportunity to re-let the premises. Specifically, the plaintiff argued before the trial court that the defendant should be required to return to the plaintiff all rents she received after February, 2017, because the lease was terminated by operation of law due to the defendant‘s violation of
The plaintiff argued that the defendant admitted at trial that the plaintiff abandoned the premises during the winter of 2016 through 2017 and testified further that she was present in April, 2017, when a moving truck removed the remainder of the plaintiff‘s personal property from the premises. Consequently, he argued that, by operation of law, the lease agreement was terminated by March, 2017, and the defendant had no right to any rent from that point forward.
The court rejected the plaintiff‘s claim on the basis of its factual findings that “the parties attempted to negotiate an early exit for the plaintiff but when the negotiations failed [the plaintiff] indicated he would fulfill his obligations under the lease and he left itеms (albeit very few
On appeal, the plaintiff does not challenge the court‘s factual findings. Instead, he argues that, “[a]ccepting all of the facts found by the trial court, the plaintiff contends that the payments were made without the plaintiff‘s obligation to pay or the defendant‘s right to receive them.” He describes the issue as a matter of law subject to plenary review. Thus, we understand the plaintiff‘s claim to be that the court improperly construed
“The interpretation of a statute, as well as its applicability to a given set of facts and circumstances, involves a question of law and our review, therefore, is plenary.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Russell v. Russell, 91 Conn. App. 619, 629, 882 A.2d 98, cert. denied, 276 Conn. 924, 888 A.2d 92 (2005), and cert. denied, 276 Conn. 925, 888 A.2d 92 (2005). We begin with the text of the statute and its relationship to other statutes. See
Applying this definition, we conclude that the court correctly determined that the plaintiff did not abandon the premises before the end of the lease term. The plaintiff did not vacate the premises without notice to the defendant. To the contrary, he tried to negotiate an early termination of the lease agreement. When those negotiations failed, he expressly stated his intention to fulfill his obligations under the lease, which is the opposite of abandoning the premises. In an e-mail to the defendant‘s attorney, the plaintiff stated:
B
Last, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly held that he failed to prove his common-law claim for money had and received. The plaintiff contends that he is entitled to recover rent in the amount of $6365 and common charges in the amount of $435 that were paid for each month from March through June, 2017.
“To prevail on a claim for money had and received, a plaintiff must prove both the lаck of authority to authorize the payment and that it is inequitable for the recipient to retain it. . . . Because a cause of action for money had and received requires proof of two prongs, this court may affirm the judgment of the trial court on proof that the payment was authorized or that its retention by the defendant is equitable under all of the circumstances.” (Citation omitted; emphasis omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Stratford v. Winterbottom, 151 Conn. App. 60, 77-78, 95 A.3d 538, cert. denied, 314 Conn. 911, 100 A.3d 403 (2014).
“Our Supreme Court has stated that when money is paid by one on the basis of a mistake as to his rights and duties and the recipient has no right in good conscience to retain the money, an action of indebitatus assumpsit may be maintained to recover the money, regardless of whether the mistake was one of fact or of law. . . . The action of indebitatus assumpsit for the recovery of money had and received and for money paid . . . is an action of the common law, but, to a great extent, an equitable action, adopted for the enforcement of many equitable, as well as legal rights. . . . Stated another way, [t]he action for money had and received is an equitable action to recover back money paid by mistake where the payor is free from any moral or legal obligation to make the payment and the payee in good conscience has no right to retain it. Is the plaintiff in this action, as between it and the defendant, in equity and good conscience entitled to the money? If it is, then it is entitled to recover. The real ground of recovery is the equitable right of the plaintiff tо the money. . . .”
“[E]quitable remedies are not bound by formula but are molded to the needs of justice. . . . The court‘s determinations of whether a particular failure to pay was unjust and whether the defendant was benefited are essentially factual findings . . . that are subject only to a limited scope of review on appeal. . . . Those findings must stand, therefore, unless they are clearly erroneous or involve an abuse of discretion. . . .”
In its memorandum of decision, the trial court found that the plaintiff failed to prove that he provided payments to the defendant under the mistaken belief that he had an obligation to do so. The court found that the plaintiff signed the lease agreement, continued to use the premises for storage until April, 2017, and failed to repudiate the leasе agreement at any point during the tenancy. Thus, the court concluded that the plaintiff failed to prove his common-law claim of money had and received.
On appeal, the plaintiff argues that the court‘s conclusion was improper because the plaintiff presented evidence showing that he stated in writing to the defendant‘s attorney that he would no longer be present at the premises after October, 2016. Also, the plaintiff argues that the defendant testified to the following: the plaintiff had abandoned the premises in the winter of 2016-2017, the defendant was physically present at the premises when the remainder of the plaintiff‘s property was removed from the premises, and she did not attempt to re-let the premises prior to July, 2017. We are not persuaded.
The court‘s determination that the plaintiff was obligated to make the monthly rental payments in accordance with the terms of the lease agreement is supported by the record demonstrating that the plaintiff signed the lease agreement, communicated to the defendant‘s attorney that he would abide by the terms of the lease, and failed to repudiate the lease agreement at any point during the tenancy. Furthermore, as we also concluded in part II A of this opinion, there was ample evidence to support the court‘s conclusion that a duty to mitigate damages pursuant to
The judgment is affirmed.
In this opinion the other judges concurred.