Canton v. Cadle Properties of Connecticut, Inc.

Summary

The concurrence and dissent agrees that a court-appointed receiver may collect past-due rents and may not lease premises to a replacement tenant, but disagrees that the receiver lacks authority to commence an eviction proceeding against a nonpaying tenant. It reasons that the statutory authority to collect all rents, including payments for use and occupancy, in place of the owner necessarily includes the legal means ordinarily available to an owner, including eviction. The dissenting judge also argues that the majority's narrower interpretation renders the statute ineffective when a tenant refuses to pay.