Beal Bank, S.S.B. v. Airport Industrial Ltd. Partnership, 74 Conn. App. 460 (2003)
- Citation
- Beal Bank, S.S.B. v. Airport Industrial Ltd. Partnership, 74 Conn. App. 460 (2003)
- Parent Document
- Beal Bank, S.S.B. v. Airport Industrial Ltd. Partnership, 74 Conn. App. 460 (2003)
- Jurisdiction
- Connecticut (state)
- Effective Date
- 2003-01-07
Other Sections in This Document (15)
- Beal Bank, S.S.B. v. Airport Industrial Ltd. Partnership, 74 Conn. App. 460 (2003)
- Beal Bank, S.S.B. v. Airport Industrial Ltd. Partnership, 74 Conn. App. 460 (2003)
- Beal Bank, S.S.B. v. Airport Industrial Ltd. Partnership, 74 Conn. App. 460 (2003)
- Beal Bank, S.S.B. v. Airport Industrial Ltd. Partnership, 74 Conn. App. 460 (2003)
- Beal Bank, S.S.B. v. Airport Industrial Ltd. Partnership, 74 Conn. App. 460 (2003)
- Beal Bank, S.S.B. v. Airport Industrial Ltd. Partnership, 74 Conn. App. 460 (2003)
- Beal Bank, S.S.B. v. Airport Industrial Ltd. Partnership, 74 Conn. App. 460 (2003)
- Beal Bank, S.S.B. v. Airport Industrial Ltd. Partnership, 74 Conn. App. 460 (2003)
- Beal Bank, S.S.B. v. Airport Industrial Ltd. Partnership, 74 Conn. App. 460 (2003)
- Beal Bank, S.S.B. v. Airport Industrial Ltd. Partnership, 74 Conn. App. 460 (2003)
- Beal Bank, S.S.B. v. Airport Industrial Ltd. Partnership, 74 Conn. App. 460 (2003)
- Beal Bank, S.S.B. v. Airport Industrial Ltd. Partnership, 74 Conn. App. 460 (2003)
- Beal Bank, S.S.B. v. Airport Industrial Ltd. Partnership, 74 Conn. App. 460 (2003)
- Beal Bank, S.S.B. v. Airport Industrial Ltd. Partnership, 74 Conn. App. 460 (2003)
- Beal Bank, S.S.B. v. Airport Industrial Ltd. Partnership, 74 Conn. App. 460 (2003)
Full Text
1,089 charsIn its oral decision on the plaintiffs motion for a supplemental judgment, the court ordered the defendants to pay to the plaintiff all tenant security deposits that they held with respect to the foreclosed commercial property. The court further ordered that the security deposits be held in escrow for the benefit of the tenants. In an articulation of its decision, the court stated that it had “relie [d] on its equitable powers to fairly protect the tenants and secure their interest in the deposits in question” and that it had articulated fully its reasoning concerning the supplemental judgment in its oral decision that was rendered in a hearing after the court granted the defendants’ motion to reargue the plaintiffs motion for a supplemental judgment. In that decision, the court stated that a security deposit “should be held for the benefit of the tenant subject to the tenant performing all the covenants of the lease,” and that, if the tenant fails to perform all the obligations under the lease, the present owner of the property is entitled to “benefit from that security.”