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, the plaintiff
purchased his own home and attempted to terminate the lease, offering
to vacate the premises and pay the remaining rent due under the agree-
ment. The defendant refused the offer, and the plaintiff agreed to con-
tinue 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 account-
ing 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:
1. 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 testi-
mony relating to the claimed repair expenses unconvincing; moreover,
although the trial court’s finding that 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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 termination of the lease.
5. 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 demon-
strated that the plaintiff signed the lease, indicated that he would con-
tinue 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, accord-
ingly, 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.
Argued April 8—officially released October 5, 2021 Procedural History