Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Conaway v. Prestia, 191 Conn. 484 (1983)

Citation
Conaway v. Prestia, 191 Conn. 484 (1983)
Parent Document
Conaway v. Prestia, 191 Conn. 484 (1983)
Jurisdiction
Connecticut (state)
Effective Date
1983-09-13

Other Sections in This Document (66)

Full Text

779 chars
184 Conn. 607, 615, 440 A.2d 810 (1981). By alleging and proving the receipt of rent by the defendants under the circumstances recited above, the plaintiffs have satisfied this threshold requirement. In their complaint, however, the plaintiffs seek actual damages, and argue that the appropriate recovery thereof under CUTPA is the return of all rent money collected by the defendants. The validity of the plaintiffs’ claim under CUTPA does not, ipso facto, require the court to return the rent money. Nor does the existence of the claim shift the burden of proof as to the reasonable use and occupancy value of the units to the defendants. Since the plaintiffs have chosen to seek damages under § 42-1 lOg, they are bound by the statutory requirement of proof of actual damages.