Fitzpatrick v. Scalzi, 72 Conn. App. 779 (2002)
- Citation
- Fitzpatrick v. Scalzi, 72 Conn. App. 779 (2002)
- Parent Document
- Fitzpatrick v. Scalzi, 72 Conn. App. 779 (2002)
- Jurisdiction
- Connecticut (state)
- Effective Date
- 2002-10-08
Other Sections in This Document (29)
- Fitzpatrick v. Scalzi, 72 Conn. App. 779 (2002)
- Fitzpatrick v. Scalzi, 72 Conn. App. 779 (2002)
- Fitzpatrick v. Scalzi, 72 Conn. App. 779 (2002)
- Fitzpatrick v. Scalzi, 72 Conn. App. 779 (2002)
- Fitzpatrick v. Scalzi, 72 Conn. App. 779 (2002)
- Fitzpatrick v. Scalzi, 72 Conn. App. 779 (2002)
- Fitzpatrick v. Scalzi, 72 Conn. App. 779 (2002)
- Fitzpatrick v. Scalzi, 72 Conn. App. 779 (2002)
- Fitzpatrick v. Scalzi, 72 Conn. App. 779 (2002)
- Fitzpatrick v. Scalzi, 72 Conn. App. 779 (2002)
- Fitzpatrick v. Scalzi, 72 Conn. App. 779 (2002)
- Fitzpatrick v. Scalzi, 72 Conn. App. 779 (2002)
- Fitzpatrick v. Scalzi, 72 Conn. App. 779 (2002)
- Section 47a-21
- Section 47a-21
- Section 47a-21
- Section 47a-21
- Section 47a-21
- Section 47a-21
- Section 47a-21
- Section 47a-21
- Section 47a-21
- Section 47a-21
- Section 47a-21
- Section 47a-21
- Section 47a-21
- Section 47a-21
- Section 47a-21
- Section 47a-21
Full Text
861 charsThe plaintiffs thereafter filed an action claiming unlawful retention of their security deposit under General Statutes § 47a-21 (d) (2), violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), General Statutes § 42-110a et seq., and unjust enrichment. After a trial, the referee found violations of § 47a-21 (d) (2) and CUTPA, and that the defendants had been unjustly enriched. The referee determined damages to be $3700 for the failure to return the plaintiffs’ deposit, an additional $3700 because that failure was wilful and wrongful, $1411 in interest under General Statutes § 37-3a and $1321 for attorney’s fees under CUTPA for a total of $10,132. The court accepted the referee’s findings and recommendation that judgment be rendered in favor of the plaintiffs. After the court rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, this appeal followed.