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

Rodriguez v. Ancona, 868 A.2d 807 (2005)

Citation
Rodriguez v. Ancona, 868 A.2d 807 (2005)
Parent Document
Rodriguez v. Ancona, 868 A.2d 807 (2005)
Jurisdiction
Connecticut (state)
Effective Date
2005-03-22

Other Sections in This Document (60)

Full Text

796 chars
As the plaintiff rightly claims, in certain circumstances, a tenant could have the entire value of the rent subsidized by the federal government. Under the court’s interpretation of “one month’s rent,” such a tenant who suffers an illegal entry would be entitled to no damages, absent attorney’s fees, while a tenant who pays full rental value would be entitled to damages. We know of no public policy that would support such a result. More specifically, we find no language in the applicable statutory scheme that warrants the disparate treatment of tenants based on the amount of rent they actually pay. We therefore hold that the phrase “one month’s rent” as utilized in § 47a-18a includes both the tenant’s portion as well as the subsidized portion of the rent payments made to a landlord. II