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
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/7911981/beal-bank-ssb-v-airport-industr... ↗

Full Text

968 chars

We also agree with the court that in the present case, the tenants’ interest in their security deposits should be protected. The tenants, however, were not made parties to the proceedings, and there is absolutely no evidence in the record regarding the postforeclosure status of their leases and security deposits. The issue of which party is entitled to hold the tenants’ security deposits, therefore, could not have been litigated properly because the tenants, the parties most vitally affected, were not involved in the proceedings.4 See, *464e.g., Meadowbrook Third Co-op, Inc. v. Hamden, 165 Conn. 546, 549-50, 338 A.2d 475 (1973); DeDominicis v. Cornfield Point Assn., 154 Conn. 504, 506, 227 A.2d 89 (1967); Leo Foundation v. Cabelus, 151 Conn. 655, 658, 201 A.2d 654 (1964). Accordingly, we conclude that under the circumstances of this case, the mortgage foreclosure action was not the appropriate proceeding in which to determine the security deposit issue.5

Other Sections in This Document (15)

Full Text