Groton Townhouse Apartments v. Marder, 435 A.2d 47 (1981)
- Citation
- Groton Townhouse Apartments v. Marder, 435 A.2d 47 (1981)
- Parent Document
- Groton Townhouse Apartments v. Marder, 435 A.2d 47 (1981)
- Jurisdiction
- Connecticut (state)
- Effective Date
- 1981-05-29
Other Sections in This Document (16)
- Groton Townhouse Apartments v. Marder, 435 A.2d 47 (1981)
- Groton Townhouse Apartments v. Marder, 435 A.2d 47 (1981)
- Groton Townhouse Apartments v. Marder, 435 A.2d 47 (1981)
- Groton Townhouse Apartments v. Marder, 435 A.2d 47 (1981)
- Groton Townhouse Apartments v. Marder, 435 A.2d 47 (1981)
- Groton Townhouse Apartments v. Marder, 435 A.2d 47 (1981)
- Groton Townhouse Apartments v. Marder, 435 A.2d 47 (1981)
- Groton Townhouse Apartments v. Marder, 435 A.2d 47 (1981)
- Groton Townhouse Apartments v. Marder, 435 A.2d 47 (1981)
- Groton Townhouse Apartments v. Marder, 435 A.2d 47 (1981)
- Groton Townhouse Apartments v. Marder, 435 A.2d 47 (1981)
- Groton Townhouse Apartments v. Marder, 435 A.2d 47 (1981)
- Groton Townhouse Apartments v. Marder, 435 A.2d 47 (1981)
- Groton Townhouse Apartments v. Marder, 435 A.2d 47 (1981)
- Groton Townhouse Apartments v. Marder, 435 A.2d 47 (1981)
- Groton Townhouse Apartments v. Marder, 435 A.2d 47 (1981)
Full Text
1,013 charsthe court rendered judgment for the tenant upon the ground that the plaintiff had accepted the payment tendered as rent for September, 1979, the month for which the plaintiff claimed a default. At the trial of the seven summary process actions which are the subject of this appeal, the plaintiff virtually conceded that the same situation existed and the court entered judgment for the defendants. A hearing was then held upon the disbursement of the money held by the court which had been deposited by the defendants for use and occupancy during the pendency of the actions. The defendants claimed that the deposits should be returned to them because they had prevailed in the summary process actions and also because of the absence of a certificate of occupancy for the apartment building. The trial court decided these issues for the plaintiff and ordered that the funds be paid to it. The defendants have filed a consolidated appeal from that determination. We find no support in General Statutes § 47a-26f, 2