Source: https://jud.ct.gov/LawLib/LawLibNews/Default.aspx?CatID=21
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 21:57:41+00:00

Document:
AC41198 - A1Z7, LLC v. Dombek (Unjust enrichment; application for prejudgment remedy; whether trial court properly concluded that statute (47a-26b) awarding use and occupancy payments in summary process actions did not prohibit recovery of retroactive use and occupancy payments in separate action; "General Statutes § 47a-26b permits a property owner in a summary process action to seek the fair rental value of the premises occupied by a defendant during the pendency of a summary process action. The central issue in this case is whether § 47a-26b provides the exclusive remedy and, therefore, preempts an owner's ability to seek payment from the occupier for unjust enrichment for the reasonable value of the premises occupied for a time period for which § 47a-26b would not permit an order of use and occupancy payments. Because the language of the statute does not plainly and unambiguously foreclose other common-law remedies such as unjust enrichment and an exercise of that common-law remedy would not conflict with the purpose of the statute, we conclude that it is not foreclosed.
Our Law About Landlord/Tenant Law web page has been updated to include the fifth edition of Housing Issues in the Small Claims Division of the Superior Court (2018).
This publication covers claims by the tenant for return of a security deposit, claims by the landlord for back rent, and other claims such as property damage, attorney's fees, and punitive damages.
AC40196 - Kargul v. Smith (" The self-represented defendants, Mika-Ela Smith and Mark DeGale, appeal from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the plaintiffs, Aloysius Kargul and Barbara Greczkowski. On appeal, the defendants claim that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over this summary process action. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
. . . [W]e conclude that when the plaintiffs withdrew the first action against the defendants prior to the commencement of a hearing on its merits, the continuation of the agreement between the parties was restored. Housing Authority v. Hird, supra, 13 Conn. App. 157. The trial court, therefore, did not lack subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiffs' subsequent summary process action.
The Judicial Branch is now posting online headnotes for both Supreme and Appellate Court opinions. These headnotes, which accompany individual Supreme and Appellate Court decisions, include a short summary of the ruling and the procedural history of a case. The Reporter of Judicial Decisions prepares the headnotes, which are not part of the opinion. As such, the opinion alone should be relied upon for the reasoning behind the decision [Emphasis added].
Subscribe to a case law category (or categories) of your choice through our Email Digest or RSS delivery services to receive the latest cases from the Supreme or Appellate Courts delivered directly to your inbox.

References: v. 
 § 47
 § 47
 § 47
 v. 
 v.