Herron v. Daniels
| Decision Date | 05 October 2021 |
| Docket Number | AC 43560 |
| Citation | 264 A.3d 184,208 Conn.App. 75 |
| Parties | Marc HERRON v. Linda DANIELS |
| Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
Alan R. Spirer, Westport, for the appellant-cross appellee (defendant).
Anthony J. Musto, for the appellee-cross appellant (plaintiff).
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 General Statutes § 47a-21 (d), due to her failure to return to the plaintiff a portion of his security deposit, (2) concluded that the her handling of the plaintiff's security deposit and her failure to return a portion of his security deposit violated the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), General Statutes § 42-110a et seq., and (3) awarded punitive damages to the plaintiff under CUTPA.
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 General Statutes § 47a-11a, he did not abandon the premises prior to June 30, 2017, and (2) denying his common-law claim for money had and received. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
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: 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 included seven counts: breach of contract; violation of § 47a-21 (d) ; violation of CUTPA; conversion; civil theft; violation of § 47a-11a ; and a common-law claim for money had and received. The plaintiff sought, inter alia, double damages under § 47a-21 (d) (2), and attorney's fees and punitive damages under CUTPA. The defendant denied the plaintiff's claims and filed a counterclaim for amounts due to her for damages exceeding the amount of the security deposit.
On October 21, 2019, following a one day trial to the court and the 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 § 47a-21 (d), violation of CUTPA, and conversion. The court rejected the plaintiff's remaining claims. It also concluded that, of the $12,730 security deposit, only $7429.92 properly was withheld by the defendant. The amount properly withheld included the unpaid June rent and association fees, the corresponding late charges and $379.72 for repairs.1 The court found that the defendant's other claimed repair costs "were not supported by the defendant's testimony or attached evidence ...." The court further found that certain charges were "fabricated" by the defendant and found that all of the deductions from the security deposit that were disputed by the plaintiff were "pretextual." The court also found that the defendant had mishandled the plaintiff's security deposit by not keeping it segregated in a separate account, using it for her personal expenses during the term of the lease, and not accounting for accrued interest on the security deposit.
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 § 47a-21 (d), the court awarded, pursuant to the statute, double damages in the amount of twice the plaintiff's security deposit and interest due thereon for the defendant's wilful failure to return the portion of the deposit to which the plaintiff was entitled. In particular, the court awarded the plaintiff $12,730, the amount of the security deposit, and $12.73 in accrued interest. The court doubled the damages, increasing the award to $25,460 and $25.46, respectively, pursuant to its conclusion that the defendant had violated § 47a-21 (d).
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
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 § 47a-11a, the court found that the defendant's duty under the statute never materialized because the plaintiff never abandoned the premises before the end of the lease term. Similarly, because the plaintiff never abandoned the premises and continued to use it for storage through the end of the lease term, the court concluded that the plaintiff could not succeed on his seventh count alleging the common-law claim of money had and received.
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.
THE DEFENDANT'S APPEAL
The defendant's first claim is that the trial court erred in awarding the plaintiff double damages pursuant to § 47a-21 (d). The defendant presents two arguments relating to this claim. First, the defendant argues that the court erroneously determined that certain of her charges for damages to the premises were pretextual. In making this argument, the defendant does not dispute the court's conclusion that she failed to prove that the plaintiff caused the alleged damages to the premises. Instead, she argues that she complied with § 47a-21 (d) by providing the plaintiff with a list of itemized deductions from his security deposit and that her failure to prove that the deductions were justified does not constitute a violation of the statute unless those charges were pretextual. See Carrillo v. Goldberg , 141 Conn. App. 299, 310–11, 61 A.3d 1164 (2013). She argues that the court's finding that the deductions were pretextual was clearly erroneous.
Second, the defendant argues that, even if the court's finding of pretext was not clearly erroneous, the court erred by awarding the plaintiff the entire amount of his security deposit and doubling it pursuant to § 47a-21 (d) when the plaintiff conceded that the defendant properly retained more than one half of the security deposit to cover unpaid rent, association fees, late charges, and certain repairs. The defendant...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pointe Residential Builders BH, LLC v. TMP Constr. Grp., LLC
... ... loss in support of [its] CUTPA allegations, and a failure to do so is indeed fatal to a CUTPA claim ... " (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Herron v. Daniels , 208 Conn. App. 75, 100, 264 A.3d 184 (2021). The court expressly found that, although the plaintiff made a deposit in the amount of ... ...