Seramonte CT, LLC v. Blau

0 Conn. App. 1 (2025) · Connecticut Appellate Court · December 23, 2025 · No. AC 47955

Summary

The Connecticut Appellate Court affirmed the denial of residential tenants’ motion for attorney’s fees under General Statutes § 42-150bb after they prevailed in a summary process action. The court held that the landlord’s notice to quit and eviction action, which were based on alleged serious nuisance under the summary process statutes, were not based on a breach of the parties’ lease. Accordingly, the reciprocal attorney’s fee statute did not apply.

Court
Connecticut Appellate Court
Writing for the Court
Bear, J.; Elgo, J.; Moll, J.
Jurisdiction
Connecticut Appellate Court
Decision date
December 23, 2025
Docket number
AC 47955
Procedural posture
Tenants appealed from the Superior Court's denial of their motion for attorney's fees after they prevailed in the landlord's summary process action.
Standard of review
Plenary review applied to the interpretation and applicability of General Statutes § 42-150bb.
Precedential value
Published and precedential Connecticut Appellate Court opinion
Parties
Greta Blau, Paul Boudreau v. Seramonte CT, LLC
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

landlord tenantevictionattorney feesstatutory interpretationcivil procedure

Practice areas

landlord-tenantreal estateconsumer protectioncivil procedureremedies

Questions Presented

  1. Whether a tenant who successfully defends a summary process action alleging serious nuisance may recover reciprocal attorney's fees under General Statutes § 42-150bb when the action is based on statutory serious-nuisance allegations rather than a breach of the lease.
  2. Whether the trial court properly denied the tenants' motion for attorney's fees without reaching the parties' alternative dispute concerning the lease's attorney's-fee provision.

Holdings

  1. Tenants are not entitled to reciprocal attorney's fees under § 42-150bb when they successfully defend a summary process action based on statutory serious-nuisance allegations rather than on the lease or a breach of the lease.

Key quotations

The parties’ lease was neither the foundation of the plaintiff’s summary process action nor the reason that the defendants prevailed in that matter. (at 14)
For these reasons, we conclude that the trial court properly denied the defendants’ motion for attorney’s fees filed pursuant to § 42a-150bb. (at 15)

Factual background

Seramonte leased a Hamden apartment to Greta Blau and Paul Boudreau for one year beginning about March 1, 2022. After Blau engaged in threatening and abusive conduct toward the landlord's attorney and employees of a towing contractor, Seramonte served a notice to quit alleging serious nuisance, including Boudreau's failure to control Blau's conduct. The trial court found that the conduct did not fall within the statutory definition of serious nuisance because it was not directed at another tenant or the landlord, and it entered judgment for the tenants. The tenants then sought attorney's fees under § 42-150bb.

Procedural history

Seramonte brought a summary process action in the Superior Court for the judicial district of New Haven, Housing Session, alleging serious nuisance and related statutory violations. After striking one count, the trial court held a trial on the remaining counts and rendered judgment for the defendants. The court later denied the defendants' motion for $31,195 in attorney's fees under General Statutes § 42-150bb. The defendants appealed, and the Connecticut Appellate Court affirmed.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…