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

2,306 chars

establishes inadequate representation if the applicant
shows that representation of his interest may be inade-
quate . . . . The particular circumstances of each case
will dictate whether the absentee has an interest differ-
ent from that of an existing party, and doubts should
be resolved in favor of intervention.’’ (Citation omitted;
emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted.)
Rosado v. Bridgeport Roman Catholic Diocesan Corp.,
60 Conn. App. 134, 149–50, 758 A.2d 916 (2000). ‘‘[A]
presumption of inadequacy arises when an absentee
must rely on his opponent or one whose interests are
adverse to his.’’ Id., 149. Baotou’s interest in the use
and occupancy payments is clearly adverse to both
the plaintiff and the defendants. A distribution of the
accumulated funds to either the plaintiff or the defen-
dants obviously would deprive Baotou of the funds
and, as discussed, likely would give rise to further legal
action. Accordingly, the existing parties would not ade-
quately protect Baotou’s interest in obtaining the use
and occupancy payments. Thus, the fourth element is
satisfied.
The trial court, in denying the motion to intervene,
did not engage in an analysis utilizing the appropriate
four factor test. Instead, the primary reason given by
the court for not permitting Baotou to intervene in the
postjudgment proceedings was Baotou’s lack of any
present possessory interest in the property that was
the subject of the eviction action. This was far too
narrow of a lens, or perhaps the wrong lens entirely,
through which to view Baotou’s request for interven-
tion. As a party with a clear and undisputed interest
in the distribution of the accrued use and occupancy
payments, Baotou had an absolute right to intervene.
‘‘The underlying purpose of a § 47a-35b proceeding
is to place some obligation on a nonpaying tenant to
provide a property owner with surety against further
financial losses while the summary process judgment
Page 14 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL 0, 0

Other Sections in This Document (39)

Full Text