Conn. Gen. Stat. » Title 47a — LANDLORD AND TENANT · Chapter 832 — Summary Process
Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 47a-26f (2025)

Hearing to distribute payments

✓ laws through the 2024 session: the source has not yet published 2025 Public Acts (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
After entry of final judgment, the court shall hold a hearing to determine the amount due each party from the accrued payments for such use and occupancy and order distribution in accordance with its determination. Such determination shall be based upon the respective claims of the parties arising during the pendency of the proceedings after the date of the order for payments and shall be conclusive of such claims only to the extent of the total amount distributed.

(P.A. 79-571, S. 57.)

Cited. 19 CA 32. Not reversible error for hearing to have occurred prior to entry of final judgment, where court issued no ruling after such hearing due to lack of a final judgment, and there was no indication defendant sought to introduce any testimony or raise any arguments other than those raised in prior hearing. 140 CA 57.

Cited. 37 CS 688; Id., 897; 38 CS 70; Id., 603; 40 CS 53.

(Return to Chapter
Table of Contents)		 (Return to
List of Chapters)		 (Return to
List of Titles)

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1981–2024 · leading case: MFS Assocs., Inc. v. Autospa Realty Corp., 560 A.2d 484 (Conn. App. Ct. 1989).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
MFS Assocs., Inc. v. Autospa Realty Corp., 560 A.2d 484 (Conn. App. Ct. 1989). · cites it 14× “The plaintiff appeals from the order of the trial court granting the defendant’s motion for disbursement of funds pursuant to General Statutes § 47a-26f. 1 The plaintiff claims that the court erred in ordering the return to the defendant of funds for use *34 and occupancy that…”
Rock Rimmon Grange 142, Inc. v. Bible Speaks Ministries, Inc., 961 A.2d 1012 (Conn. App. Ct. 2009). · cites it 6× “Preliminarily, we note that in its brief the defendant asks us to reverse the judgment of the trial court because it improperly interpreted General Statutes § 47a-26f. At oral argument, the parties agreed that the pertinent statute is General Statutes § 47a-35b, not § 47a-26f.”
Ciavaglia v. Bolles, 457 A.2d 669 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1982). · cites it 4× “Following the entry of judgment for possession, the court conducted a hearing pursuant to General Statutes § 47a-26f 1 to determine the parties’ respective interests in an $1800 fund paid into court by the defendants during the pendency of the action.”
Centrix Mgmt. Co. v. Valencia, 76 A.3d 694 (Conn. App. Ct. 2013). · cites it 4× “Section 47a-35b, is “nearly identical [to General Statutes § 47a-26f] in language and purpose .”
Groton Townhouse Apts. v. Marder, 435 A.2d 47 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1981). · cites it 4× “We find no support in General Statutes § 47a-26f, 2 the statute which controls the distribution of payments made into court pursuant to an order of deposit entered under § 47a-26b, for the proposition advanced by the defendants that the funds must be paid to them simply because…”
Brennan Assocs. v. Radioshack Corp., 58 A.3d 334 (Conn. App. Ct. 2013). · cites it 18× “The defendant claims that the court abused its discretion in granting the plaintiffs motion for disbursement of funds without holding a hearing pursuant to General Statutes § 47a-26f. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.”
Wyngate, Inc. v. Bozak, Inc., 480 A.2d 616 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1984). · cites it 2× “General Statutes § 47a-26b permits a landlord, in a summary process action, to require a tenant to pay the fair rental value of the premises for his use and occupancy “during the pendency of said action.”
Altavista Investments, LLC v. Makeeva, 317 A.3d 850 (Conn. App. Ct. 2024). · cites it 5× “Makeeva after the trial court had dismissed the summary process action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the defendant tenant moved for disbursement of the use and occupancy payments that it had paid into court during the pendency of the action.”
Frank Smith Assocs. v. Tucker, 442 A.2d 485 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1982). · cites it 5× “It is now required to hold a hearing and disburse the use and occupancy fund in accordance with its determination, as required by General Statutes § 47a-26f. Groton Townhouse Apartments v.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.