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

2,448 chars

of leases and rents. Moreover, neither party to the
          underlying action has participated in the present appeal
          to raise such an argument. In short, not only does Bao-
          tou have a direct right to the subject matter of the
          postjudgment litigation at issue, that right is also a sub-
          stantial one, as reflected in the amount of the accumu-
          lated use and occupancy payments at issue: $336,000.
              Moreover, Baotou’s interest would likely be impaired
          by any disposition in which it was not permitted to
          participate. Section 47a-35b expressly provides that the
          court’s distribution of the accumulated use and occu-
          pancy payments ‘‘shall be conclusive,’’ suggesting that
          Baotou’s exclusion from the distribution proceeding
          could prove fatal, or at the least impair, any later
          attempt to assert a right to the distributed funds. Even
          if it were able to later establish in the foreclosure action
          that it is entitled under the loan documents to any
          distribution made to the plaintiff, it is uncertain, given
          the plaintiff’s alleged default on the mortgage debt, that
          Baotou would be able to recover the distributed funds.
          The fact that Baotou possibly could vindicate its rights
          to the use and occupancy payments by instituting
          another lawsuit is not pertinent to whether it should
          be permitted to intervene now given that our ‘‘rules of
          intervention should be liberally construed, in order to
          avoid multiplicity of suits and settle all related contro-
          versies in one action.’’ (Internal quotation marks omit-
          ted.) Schaghticoke Tribal Nation v. Harrison, 264
          Conn. 829, 838–39, 826 A.2d 1102 (2003). On balance,
          we conclude that the second and third elements of the
          four part test are met.
            Finally, the fourth element of the test is whether the
          interest of the proposed intervenor can be represented
          adequately by any existing party to the litigation. ‘‘The
          burden for establishing inadequate representation of
          similar interests is minimal. Indeed, the United States
          Supreme Court has acknowledged that one successfully
0, 0                    CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                     Page 13

Other Sections in This Document (39)

Full Text