Carroll v. Yankwitt

Syllabus

The plaintiff sought to recover the security deposit he paid to the defendant, his former landlord, in connection with the second of two residential leases that the parties had executed. The first lease was for approxi- mately twelve months and had an open-ended commencement date that began on the date the plaintiff commenced occupancy. The parties thereafter executed the second lease, which also ran for one year, and, under which, the plaintiff tendered the payment of the security deposit to the defendant pursuant to statute ([Rev. to 2013] § 47a-21 (d) (2)). On the day the plaintiff's tenancy concluded under the second lease, the defendant sent him an e-mail informing him of various items of damage to the property and inquiring whether he would repair the damage. When the plaintiff did not respond, the defendant sent him a second e-mail two weeks later, itemizing the damages and stating that he had incurred remediation costs, a loss of rent as a result of his inability to relet the property because of the damage, and that the plaintiff owed him unpaid rent for the final week of the first lease. The plaintiff then sent the defendant a letter by certified mail, return receipt requested, seeking the return of the security deposit. The postal service returned the letter to the plaintiff with a notation that it was unclaimed and unable to be forwarded. In addition to the return of the security deposit, the plaintiff sought double damages pursuant to § 47a-21 (d) (2), and attorney's fees, costs and punitive damages as a result of the defendant's alleged violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), General Statutes § 42-110a et seq. The defendant filed a counterclaim seeking damages for the remediation costs he incurred. The case was tried to an attorney trial referee, who recommended judgment for the plaintiff as to the security deposit, double damages and CUTPA claims, and for the defendant on his counterclaim in part. The trial court adopted the re