Altavista Investments, LLC v. Makeeva, 226 Conn. App. 175 (2024)

Investments, LLC v. Makeeva, 220 Conn. App. 901, 297
         A.3d 285 (2023) (affirming judgment of possession).
         Baotou Capital, LLC (Baotou), which holds a note
         secured by a mortgage on residential property located
         at 969 North Street in Greenwich (property), the prop-
         erty at issue in the eviction action, filed the present
         appeal from the denial of its postjudgment motion to
         intervene on the basis of an ownership interest it claims
         in use and occupancy payments made by the defendants
         in lieu of bond during the pendency of the prior appeal.
         See General Statutes § 47a-35a (a).2 Baotou claims that
         the trial court improperly determined that, because it
         lacked any possessory interest in the property, it was
         not a proper party to the eviction action and, thus, also
         was not entitled to intervene in postjudgment proceed-
         ings pursuant to General Statutes § 47a-35b3 regarding
         the final distribution of the use and occupancy pay-
         ments. We agree that the court improperly failed to
         permit Baotou to intervene as a matter of right and,
         accordingly, reverse the judgment of the court.
           The record reveals the following relevant facts and
         procedural history. The plaintiff purchased the property
         that the appeal would be considered solely on the basis of Baotou Capital,
         LLC’s brief and oral argument, and the record as defined by Practice Book
         § 60-4.
            2
              General Statutes § 47a-35a (a) provides in relevant part that, if an ‘‘appeal
         is taken by the defendant occupying a dwelling unit . . . in an action of
         summary process,’’ the defendant must give the adverse party an appeal
         bond or, ‘‘upon motion by the defendant and after [a] hearing,’’ the court
         shall order, in lieu of a bond, ‘‘the defendant to deposit with the court
         payments for the reasonable fair rental value of the use and occupancy of
         the premises during the pendency of [an] appeal accruing from the date of
         such order. . . .’’
            3
              General Statutes § 47a-35b provides: ‘‘Upon final disposition of the
         appeal, the trial court shall hold a hearing to determine the amount due
         each party from the accrued payments for use and occupancy and order
         distribution in accordance with such determination. Such determination
         shall be based upon the respective claims of the parties arising during the
         pendency of the proceedings after the date of the order for payments and
         shall be conclusive of those claims only to the extent of the total amount
         distributed.’’
0, 0                         CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                                       Page 3