Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Seramonte CT, LLC v. Blau (2025)

Citation
Seramonte CT, LLC v. Blau (2025)
Parent Document
Seramonte CT, LLC v. Blau (2025)
Jurisdiction
Connecticut (state)
Effective Date
2025-12-23

Full Text

2,763 chars
On May 21, 2024, the defendants moved for attorney’s
         fees in the amount of $31,195 pursuant to § 42-150bb.5
         In the attached memorandum of law, the defendants
         argued that, as the prevailing parties, they were entitled
         to such fees because paragraph 19 of the parties’ lease
         provided that, if the plaintiff brought proceedings to
         evict the defendants from the premises, it would be
         entitled to ‘‘any attorney’s fees or other fees and costs
         associated with the removal of [the defendants] . . . .’’
         The defendants attached an affidavit of attorney’s fees
         and a copy of the parties’ lease to their motion. The
         defendants further asserted that, having demonstrated
         their entitlement to attorney’s fees, the court had ‘‘no
         latitude’’ to deny this motion.
           On May 31, 2024, the plaintiff filed an objection to
         the defendants’ motion for attorney’s fees. It argued
         therein that the notice to quit, and the subsequent sum-
         mary process action, were based on serious nuisance
         and not a breach of the lease. Specifically, it asserted
         that courts ‘‘have consistently recognized the indepen-
         dent nature of a serious nuisance cause of action as
         one that is borne out of statutory creation and exists
         independently rather than as a product of the contrac-
         tual relationship . . . .’’ It further argued that this statu-
         tory basis for summary process existed even if the lease
         were not valid, or if a lease did not exist at all. On June
         17, 2024, the defendants filed a reply to the plaintiff’s
            5
              The defendants were represented by attorneys from New Haven Legal
         Assistance Association, Inc. (NHLLA). In the defendants’ motion for attor-
         ney’s fees, they asserted that NHLLA is a nonprofit organization that provides
         free legal services to its clients. This court has recognized that, as a general
         matter, such organizations are entitled to awards of attorney’s fees under
         the appropriate circumstances. See generally Benavides v. Benavides, 11
         Conn. App. 150, 152–56, 526 A.2d 536 (1987). We note that the plaintiff has
         not challenged or disputed that NHLLA was eligible for an award of attorney’s
         fees on the basis of its nonprofit status. Additionally, the trial court remarked
         in its memorandum of decision that it ‘‘has regularly found that legal aid
         societies are able to claim legal fees for the provision of their services.’’
0, 0                        CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                                   Page 5