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
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3327110/groton-townhouse-apartments-v-marder/ ↗

Full Text

1,041 chars

parties. The statute specifies that a hearing must be held “to determine the amount due each party” and that “[s]uch determination shall be based upon the respective claims of the parties arising during the pendency of the proceedings after the date of the order” of deposit. No such hearing or determination would be necessary if the deposit were to be paid automatically to the successful litigant in the summary process action. Furthermore, the statute expressly provides that the disbursement order is to be based upon “claims of the parties arising during the pendency of the proceedings.” This limitation indicates that the equities between the parties prior to commencement of a summary process action, upon which its outcome normally depends, are not determinative in making such an order. The evident purpose of the statute was to authorize the court to settle equitably the many disputes which may arise during the pendency of the proceeding not necessarily related to the merits of the action. The case of Santabarbara v. Rauccio,

Other Sections in This Document (16)

Full Text