The plaintiff landlord sought to recover damages for, inter alia, the defen-
dants’ alleged violations of a lease agreement entered into in connection
with the rental of a furnished, single-family home. Within thirty days of
the termination of their tenancy, the plaintiff sent to the defendants an
accounting of their security deposit and the alleged damages to the
leased property, which indicated that there had been more than $50,000
in damages and that the deposit had been fully expended to cover certain
of the expenses incurred in connection therewith. The defendants filed a
counterclaim in which they alleged that the plaintiff violated the security
deposit statute (§ 47a-21) and the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices
Act (CUTPA) (§ 42-110a et seq.). Following a bench trial, the trial court
rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff on his complaint and on the
defendants’ counterclaim, and the defendants appealed to this court.
Held:
1. The defendants could not prevail on their claim that the trial court erred
in rendering judgment against them for damages to the premises without
determining the age and condition of the property at the time of the
commencement of the tenancy and the relative wear and tear of the
items at the time of the termination of the tenancy: the trial court had
ample evidence before it that supported its calculation of damages,
including a comprehensive list of the damaged items and fixtures, photo-
graphs of the damage, and receipts for repairs and replacement pur-
chases; moreover, any wear and tear of the individual items was insignifi-
cant, given the scope of the documented damage; accordingly, the trial
court’s damages award was not improper.
2. The defendants could not prevail on their claim that the trial court erred
in failing to render judgment in their favor on the counterclaim:
a. The trial court’s finding with respect to the amount of the security
deposit paid to the plaintiff was not clearly erroneous: the lease agree-
ment, which was admitted into evidence as an exhibit at trial, substanti-
ated the court’s factual finding as to the amount of the security deposit;
moreover, the defendants did not offer any documentary evidence at
trial, such as receipts or other banking records, of payments made to
the plaintiff in excess of the security deposit amount set forth in the lease.
b. The trial court’s determination that the plaintiff properly provided the
defendants with a written accounting of the deductions made from the
security deposit, as required by § 47a-21 (d) (2), was not clearly errone-
ous: a comprehensive written statement prepared by the plaintiff, which
detailed the damages to the property, the costs incurred in association
therewith, and the balance of the security deposit, was introduced into
evidence at trial along with evidence that the plaintiff sent such statement
to each defendant within thirty days of the termination of their tenancy;
moreover, the remaining security deposit funds were properly applied
to the damages caused by the defendants because the costs of repairing
and replacing the damaged items, as documented in the written state-
ment, exceeded the balance of the security deposit.
c. This court declined to disturb the trial court’s conclusion that the
defendants failed to establish that the plaintiff had violated § 47a-21 (h)
by failing to retain the security deposit in a separate escrow account:
the defendants discussion of the plaintiff’s alleged violation of § 47a-21
(h) was limited to the foundation that they laid for their counterclaim
under CUTPA and, accordingly, this court’s ability to grant relief was
conditioned on whether the plaintiff’s failure to hold the security deposit
in an escrow account was a CUTPA violation; moreover, the plaintiff’s
alleged conduct, even if found by the court, was not sufficiently unfair
or deceptive to constitute a CUTPA violation; furthermore, even if the
plaintiff’s alleged conduct did amount to a violation of CUTPA, the
defendants were barred from recovery because they failed to satisfy the
requirements of the applicable statute (§ 42-110g (a)), as they did not put
forth any evidence of an ascertainable loss stemming from the plaintiff’s
handling of their security deposit and they failed to show that the plaintiff
misappropriated or otherwise improperly took money out of the initial
security deposit.
Submitted on briefs September 20, 2021—officially released
February 1, 2022 Procedural History