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

is being considered on appeal. . . . A proceeding to
          order the distribution of funds held by the court in a
          summary process action under § 47a-35b is properly
          limited to those claims related to the use and occupancy
          of the premises during the pendency of the appeal.’’
          (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.)
          Rock Rimmon Grange #142, Inc. v. Bible Speaks Minis-
          tries, Inc., 112 Conn. App. 1, 7, 961 A.2d 1012 (2009).
          ‘‘[T]he evident purpose of the statute was to authorize
          the court to settle equitably the many disputes which
          may arise during the pendency of the proceeding not
          necessarily related to the merits of the action.’’ (Empha-
          sis added; internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 6. In
          other words, a § 47a-35b hearing is unrelated to the
          determination of the possessory interests in the prop-
          erty in a summary process action. Rather, in the present
          case, it involves a dispute that falls outside of the merits
          of the eviction action, one that is between primarily
          the plaintiff and Baotou over who should receive the
          benefit of the use and occupancy payments made by
          the defendants during their unsuccessful appeal.
            In MFS Associates, Inc. v. Autospa Realty Corp., 19
          Conn. App. 32, 560 A.2d 484 (1989), this court construed
          an analogous statute, General Statutes § 47a-26f,14
          which governs the distribution of use and occupancy
          payments paid into court during the pendency of an
          eviction action rather than following an appeal in lieu
          of bond. Id., 33 n.1, 35; see also Rock Rimmon Grange
          #142, Inc. v. Bible Speaks Ministries, Inc., supra, 112
          Conn. App. 5 (§§ 47a-26f and 47a-35b are ‘‘nearly identi-
          cal in language and purpose’’). In MFS Associates, Inc.,
            14
              General Statutes § 47a-26f provides: ‘‘After entry of final judgment, the
          court shall hold a hearing to determine the amount due each party from
          the accrued payments for such use and occupancy and order distribution
          in accordance with its 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 conclu-
          sive of such claims only to the extent of the total amount distributed.’’
0, 0                    CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                     Page 15