Skip to main content
INTERNAL PROTOTYPE — NOT LEGAL ADVICE — DO NOT SEND

Sheridan v. Desmond, 45 Conn. App. 686 (1997)

Citation
Sheridan v. Desmond, 45 Conn. App. 686 (1997)
Parent Document
Sheridan v. Desmond, 45 Conn. App. 686 (1997)
Jurisdiction
Connecticut (state)
Effective Date
1997-07-15

Other Sections in This Document (39)

Full Text

1,197 chars
Because we have already concluded that the general verdict rule does not apply here, we examine the fourth count of the amended complaint in isolation from the other three counts. The defendant does not assert or brief any claim with respect to the security deposit claim set out in the fourth count12 and the amount claimed is definite and finite. We conclude that we may properly presume that the jury found for the plaintiffs on the fourth count. Under these circumstances, we discern no reason why the verdict and judgment as to this unchallenged claim should not stand. To do otherwise would mean reversing a portion of the judgment as to which there is no claim of error and would unfairly force the plaintiffs to prove the claim again. This would be especially egregious because the defendant offered no evidence to controvert the fourth count and no legal argument to refute the claim. The plaintiffs are entitled to twice the value of the $4320 security deposit, $8640.13 They offered no evidence as to the proper rate of interest14 to be applied to this amount *698and the trial court did not instruct the jury on how to compute the interest. Consequently, $8640 is the maximum recovery.