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

2,181 chars

rental agreement [do] not impact the plaintiff’s ability
       to ask for use and occupancy payments in the event of
       an appeal filed by the defendants.’’
          The defendants Makeeva and Vladimir Lenskiy timely
       appealed from the judgment of possession and also
       filed a motion asking the court to order appropriate
       use and occupancy payments in lieu of an appeal bond
       with surety. The court granted the motion, ordering
       the defendants to deposit monthly payments of $24,000
       with the clerk of the court.
          Shortly after the appeal was filed in the eviction action,
       Patriot Bank assigned the operative note, mortgage,
       and assignment of leases and rents to Baotou. The court
       in the foreclosure action granted a motion to substitute
       Baotou for Patriot Bank as the party plaintiff in that
       action.
         On February 7, 2023, Baotou filed a postjudgment
       motion to intervene in the eviction action for the limited
       purpose of asserting its rights with respect to the use
       and occupancy payments being deposited with the clerk
       of court and participating in any proceedings to deter-
       mine the final distribution of those funds. Makeeva and
       Vladimir Lenskiy initially filed an objection to the
       motion to intervene in which they argued that such
       intervention was ‘‘both premature and presumptuous’’
       and that Baotou ‘‘must wait for the entry of judgment
       in the foreclosure [action] and the resolution of the
       appeal in the [eviction] action.’’ They later withdrew
       their objection. The plaintiff also filed an objection to
       the motion to intervene arguing that Baotou was not a
       proper party to the eviction action, which is limited
       to the issue of possession, and, thus, should not be
       permitted to intervene.
         In response to a May 12, 2023 caseflow request from
       Baotou seeking adjudication of its motion to intervene,
       the court, Cirello, J., issued an order that it would
Page 6                        CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                                    0, 0

Other Sections in This Document (39)

Full Text