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

2,052 chars

after the trial court had dismissed the summary process
       action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the defen-
       dant tenant moved for disbursement of the use and
       occupancy payments that it had paid into court during
       the pendency of the action. MFS Associates, Inc. v.
       Autospa Realty Corp., supra, 34. The trial court granted
       the motion, and the plaintiff landlord appealed. Id. This
       court held that the trial court improperly had ordered
       the funds disbursed to the defendant simply because
       the action had been dismissed for lack of subject matter
       jurisdiction. Id., 35. This court further concluded that
       a proceeding for disbursement of use and occupancy
       funds paid into court by a tenant during the pendency
       of a summary process action ‘‘is a statutory proceeding
       separate and distinct from the summary process
       action that it follows.’’ (Emphasis added.) Id.
          Given the nearly identical language and purpose of
       § 47a-35b, we are convinced that the statutorily pre-
       scribed hearing to distribute use and occupancy pay-
       ments made during the pendency of an appeal from a
       judgment of possession in a summary process action
       is also a separate and distinct proceeding from the
       underlying eviction action. Accordingly, Baotou’s pos-
       sessory interest in the property was not a proper consid-
       eration in determining whether to grant the motion to
       intervene; the relevant question was whether Baotou
       had a sufficient interest in the separate and distinct
       distribution proceeding. Baotou’s interest is apparent
       on this record, and, therefore, the court improperly
       denied its motion to intervene as a matter of right.
         The judgment is reversed and the case is remanded
       with direction to grant Baotou’s motion to intervene and
       for further proceedings in accordance with § 47a-35b.
         In this opinion the other judges concurred.

Other Sections in This Document (39)

Full Text