Section 47a-21
- Citation
- Section 47a-21
- Parent Document
- Fitzpatrick v. Scalzi, 72 Conn. App. 779 (2002)
- Jurisdiction
- Connecticut (state)
- Effective Date
- 2002-10-08
Other Sections in This Document (29)
- Fitzpatrick v. Scalzi, 72 Conn. App. 779 (2002)
- Fitzpatrick v. Scalzi, 72 Conn. App. 779 (2002)
- Fitzpatrick v. Scalzi, 72 Conn. App. 779 (2002)
- Fitzpatrick v. Scalzi, 72 Conn. App. 779 (2002)
- Fitzpatrick v. Scalzi, 72 Conn. App. 779 (2002)
- Fitzpatrick v. Scalzi, 72 Conn. App. 779 (2002)
- Fitzpatrick v. Scalzi, 72 Conn. App. 779 (2002)
- Fitzpatrick v. Scalzi, 72 Conn. App. 779 (2002)
- Fitzpatrick v. Scalzi, 72 Conn. App. 779 (2002)
- Fitzpatrick v. Scalzi, 72 Conn. App. 779 (2002)
- Fitzpatrick v. Scalzi, 72 Conn. App. 779 (2002)
- Fitzpatrick v. Scalzi, 72 Conn. App. 779 (2002)
- Fitzpatrick v. Scalzi, 72 Conn. App. 779 (2002)
- Section 47a-21
- Section 47a-21
- Section 47a-21
- Section 47a-21
- Section 47a-21
- Section 47a-21
- Section 47a-21
- Section 47a-21
- Section 47a-21
- Section 47a-21
- Section 47a-21
- Section 47a-21
- Section 47a-21
- Section 47a-21
- Section 47a-21
- Section 47a-21
Full Text
358 charsThe referee found that the defendants’ wrongful retention of the plaintiffs’ security deposit amounted *786to unjust enrichment. The defendants claim that they were not unjustly enriched and that this finding was improper because there was no evidence of a $3700 payment from the plaintiffs. The referee’s findings are in opposition to the defendants’ claim.