Ingels v. Saldana, 930 A.2d 774 (2007)
- Citation
- Ingels v. Saldana, 930 A.2d 774 (2007)
- Parent Document
- Ingels v. Saldana, 930 A.2d 774 (2007)
- Jurisdiction
- Connecticut (state)
- Effective Date
- 2007-09-11
Other Sections in This Document (37)
- Ingels v. Saldana, 930 A.2d 774 (2007)
- Ingels v. Saldana, 930 A.2d 774 (2007)
- Ingels v. Saldana, 930 A.2d 774 (2007)
- Ingels v. Saldana, 930 A.2d 774 (2007)
- Ingels v. Saldana, 930 A.2d 774 (2007)
- Ingels v. Saldana, 930 A.2d 774 (2007)
- Ingels v. Saldana, 930 A.2d 774 (2007)
- Ingels v. Saldana, 930 A.2d 774 (2007)
- Ingels v. Saldana, 930 A.2d 774 (2007)
- Ingels v. Saldana, 930 A.2d 774 (2007)
- Ingels v. Saldana, 930 A.2d 774 (2007)
- Ingels v. Saldana, 930 A.2d 774 (2007)
- Ingels v. Saldana, 930 A.2d 774 (2007)
- Ingels v. Saldana, 930 A.2d 774 (2007)
- Ingels v. Saldana, 930 A.2d 774 (2007)
- Ingels v. Saldana, 930 A.2d 774 (2007)
- Ingels v. Saldana, 930 A.2d 774 (2007)
- Ingels v. Saldana, 930 A.2d 774 (2007)
- Ingels v. Saldana, 930 A.2d 774 (2007)
- Ingels v. Saldana, 930 A.2d 774 (2007)
- Ingels v. Saldana, 930 A.2d 774 (2007)
- Ingels v. Saldana, 930 A.2d 774 (2007)
- Ingels v. Saldana, 930 A.2d 774 (2007)
- Ingels v. Saldana, 930 A.2d 774 (2007)
- Ingels v. Saldana, 930 A.2d 774 (2007)
- Ingels v. Saldana, 930 A.2d 774 (2007)
- Ingels v. Saldana, 930 A.2d 774 (2007)
- Ingels v. Saldana, 930 A.2d 774 (2007)
- Ingels v. Saldana, 930 A.2d 774 (2007)
- Ingels v. Saldana, 930 A.2d 774 (2007)
- Ingels v. Saldana, 930 A.2d 774 (2007)
- Ingels v. Saldana, 930 A.2d 774 (2007)
- Ingels v. Saldana, 930 A.2d 774 (2007)
- Ingels v. Saldana, 930 A.2d 774 (2007)
- Ingels v. Saldana, 930 A.2d 774 (2007)
- Ingels v. Saldana, 930 A.2d 774 (2007)
- Ingels v. Saldana, 930 A.2d 774 (2007)
Full Text
483 charsThe court held that the defendant, as an escrow agent acting on Saldana’s behalf, owed the plaintiffs a fiduciary duty. The court further found that, by overstating damages to the apartment and giving the entire security deposit at issue to Saldana, the defendant breached that fiduciary duty, thereby causing the damages awarded. We decline to address the issue briefed because it is irrelevant to *729 the judgment from which the defendant appeals. See Housing Authority v. Olesen,