163 Conn.App. 219
Conn. App. Ct.2016Background
- Plaintiff Edgewood Street Garden Apartments owned 270–272 Edgewood St., Hartford, purchased 2009 for $65,000 and planned major renovations to convert to rental units.
- On Feb. 6, 2011, city building inspector David Viens responded to a call after a reported roof collapse; he observed wall cracks and bowing and concluded the building was unsafe and ordered emergency demolition.
- The city’s contractor demolished the building beginning that day; no licensed engineer inspected the structure before demolition; plaintiff’s expert later reviewed photos and opined collapse was not certain.
- Plaintiff sued the City alleging (1) Equal protection, (2) Substantive due process, (3) Procedural due process, (4) Municipal liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and (5–6) inverse condemnation under federal and state constitutions.
- Trial court found for the City on all counts: no municipal policy caused a constitutional violation under § 1983, demolition was an exercise of police power (not a taking), plaintiff failed to prove damages, plaintiff bore the burden of proof, and no adverse inference for spoliation was required.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Trial court factual findings | Court misstated renovation status, Viens' credentials, and findings about roof/collapse | Court credited Viens' testimony and evidence supporting findings | Findings were supported by record and not clearly erroneous |
| 2. Municipal liability under § 1983 (policy/cause) | Sections of municipal/state building codes that allow demolition amounted to a City "policy" causing constitutional deprivation | Codes delegate discretionary authority to building official; single discretionary act does not show municipal policy causing violation | No municipal liability: plaintiff failed to show an unconstitutional policy or causal link between policy and alleged violation |
| 3. Inverse condemnation / taking | Demolition destroyed plaintiff's investment-backed expectations and deprived use/value — constitutes a taking requiring compensation | Demolition was a valid exercise of police power to abate an unsafe structure, not a compensable taking | No taking: applying police-power/takings analysis, demolition was not confiscatory and did not eliminate all reasonable use |
| 4. Burden of proof & spoliation inference | Emergency demolition deprived plaintiff of administrative hearing — City should bear burden; City failed to preserve measurements/photos and court should infer evidence would favor plaintiff | This is a plenary civil action; plaintiff bears civil burden; adverse inference for spoliation is discretionary and unsupported here | Court correctly placed burden on plaintiff; declined permissive adverse inference because record (Viens' testimony) supported City's actions |
Key Cases Cited
- O'Connor v. Larocque, 302 Conn. 562 (Conn. 2011) (standard for appellate review of trial court factual findings)
- Bristol v. Tilcon Minerals, Inc., 284 Conn. 55 (Conn. 2007) (trial judge as sole arbiter of witness credibility)
- Connick v. Thompson, 563 U.S. 51 (U.S. 2011) (Monell principles and municipal liability under § 1983)
- Bd. of County Comm'rs v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397 (U.S. 1997) (rigorous standards for causation and culpability in municipal liability)
- Oklahoma City v. Tuttle, 471 U.S. 808 (U.S. 1985) (single incident insufficiency to prove municipal policy liability)
- Figarsky v. Historic Dist. Comm'n, 171 Conn. 198 (Conn. 1976) (police power vs. taking; reasonableness/confiscation test)
- Beers v. Bayliner Marine Corp., 236 Conn. 769 (Conn. 1996) (permissive adverse-inference rule for spoliation of evidence)