Carrillo v. Goldberg, 141 Conn. App. 299 (2013)

Citation: Carrillo v. Goldberg, 141 Conn. App. 299 (2013)
Parent Document: Carrillo v. Goldberg, 141 Conn. App. 299 (2013)
Jurisdiction: Connecticut (state)
Effective Date: 2013-03-19
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/7914988/carrillo-v-goldberg/ ↗

Full Text

765 chars

Before we can resolve the question of whether the court erroneously failed to award the plaintiffs double *308the amount of their security deposit, it is necessary to set forth the applicable definition of “security deposit.” Section 47a-21 (a) (10) defines a “security deposit” as “any advance rental payment other than an advance payment for the first month’s rent. . . .” While in common parlance a “security deposit” may have a conceptually distinct meaning from an advance payment of periodic rent, under Connecticut law, the term “security deposit” comprises all forms of advance rental payment, regardless of its intended use. According to the statutory definition, therefore, the total amount of the security deposit collected from the plaintiffs was $9600.

Other Sections in This Document (52)

Full Text