as a matter of law to the consumer who successfully
prosecutes or defends an action or a counterclaim
based upon the contract or lease. . . . For the purposes
of this section, ‘commercial party’ means the seller,
creditor, lessor or assignee of any of them, and ‘con-
sumer’ means the buyer, debtor, lessee or personal rep-
resentative of any of them. The provisions of this section
shall apply only to contracts or leases in which the
money, property or service which is the subject of the
transaction is primarily for personal, family or house-
hold purposes.’’ (Emphasis added.) This court expressly
has recognized that a tenant who has prevailed against
a landlord in a summary process action may be entitled
to attorney’s fees pursuant to § 42-150bb. Centrix Man-
agement Co., LLC v. Valencia, supra, 145 Conn. App.
689–92; see also Wilkes v. Thomson, 155 Conn. App.
278, 281, 109 A.3d 543 (2015).
Next, we consider the relevant appellate decisions
of this state that have addressed § 42-150bb. Section 42-
150bb is ‘‘in derogation of the common law. Specifically,
[t]he general rule of law known as the American rule
is that attorney’s fees and ordinary expenses and bur-
dens of litigation are not allowed to the successful party
absent a contractual or statutory exception. . . . Con-
necticut adheres to the American rule. . . . Section
42-150bb is, however, one of [the] exceptions to the
common-law rule.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.)
Athena Holdings, LLC v. Marcus, supra, 160 Conn. App.
476; see also Rizzo Pool Co. v. Del Grosso, 240 Conn.
58, 72–73, 689 A.2d 1097 (1997); Trugreen Landcare,
LLC v. Elm City Development & Construction Services,
LLC, 101 Conn. App. 11, 14–15, 919 A.2d 1077 (2007).
Additionally, we have explained that the purpose of
this statute is to bring parity between commercial enti-
ties and consumers who successfully defend an action
on a contract prepared by such an entity. Athena Hold-
ings, LLC v. Marcus, supra, 160 Conn. App. 476; see
Page 8 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL 0, 0