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

Citation: Altavista Investments, LLC v. Makeeva, 226 Conn. App. 175 (2024)
Parent Document: Altavista Investments, LLC v. Makeeva, 226 Conn. App. 175 (2024)
Jurisdiction: Connecticut (state)
Effective Date: 2024-06-11
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10131861/altavista-investments-llc-v-makeeva/ ↗

Full Text

2,381 chars

leases and rentals, which provided, in relevant part, an
         assignment of ‘‘[a]ll rents, additional rents, payments
         in connection with any termination, cancellation or sur-
         render of any Lease, revenues, income, issues and prof-
         its arising from the Leases and renewals and replace-
         ments thereof and any cash or security deposited in
         connection therewith and together with all rents, reve-
         nues, income, issues and profits . . . from the use,
         enjoyment and occupancy of the [p]roperty . . . .’’ As
         part of the assignment of leases and rentals, Patriot
         Bank granted the plaintiff a revocable license to collect
         and receive rents and other sums due under any lease.
         This license automatically was to be revoked in the
         event of a default as set forth in the loan documents.
            In October, 2019, the plaintiff entered into a pur-
         ported multiyear arrangement with Makeeva to lease
         the property for quarterly payments of $60,000. In June,
         2020, Patriot Bank commenced a mortgage foreclosure
         action (foreclosure action) against the plaintiff and its
         tenants, which remains ongoing. See Patriot Bank, N.A.
         v. Altavista Investments, LLC, Superior Court, judicial
         district of Stamford-Norwalk, Docket No. CV-20-
         6047105-S.
            In August, 2021, the plaintiff commenced the underly-
         ing summary process eviction action alleging both non-
         payment of rent and that the defendants’ right or privi-
         lege to occupy the property had terminated. On June
         14, 2022, the court, Spader, J., issued a memorandum
         of decision concluding that, although the plaintiff had
         failed to meet its burden with respect to its claim of
         nonpayment of rent due to a lack of any enforceable
         lease, it nevertheless had prevailed with respect to its
         claim that any right of the defendants to occupy the
         property had terminated. The court rendered a judg-
         ment of possession in favor of the plaintiff with a stay
         of execution through July 31, 2022. The court also con-
         cluded that its ‘‘findings . . . regarding a lack of a
0, 0                    CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                        Page 5

Other Sections in This Document (39)

Full Text