Fairchild Heights Residents Association, Inc. v. Fairchild Heights, Inc., 310 Conn. 797

Fairchild Heights Residents Association (association) represents about 45 park residents in Shelton against Fairchild Heights, Inc. (owner).
Association alleged three counts: per se negligence under mobile home park statutes, violation of municipal ordinances, and a CUTPA claim seeking declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief.
Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection investigated after the Attorney General referral; by late 2007 the department reported progress and ultimately closed the file, deeming the park in compliance.
Trial court granted judgment for the owner; Appellate Court reversed, concluding the association failed to exhaust administrative remedies and lacked standing for the CUTPA claim.
State and amicus argued CUTPA allows private actions without exhaustion and that association had associational standing; the court granted certification on exhaustion and standing issues.
This court reverses the Appellate Court only on the CUTPA standing/remand issues, directing a new trial on the association’s CUTPA claim.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether exhaustion of administrative remedies was required for declaratory relief	Fairchild argues exhaustion not required due to informal department actions.	Fairchild contends exhaustion doctrine applies; formal ruling was available via declaratory remedy.	Exhaustion required; no declaratory ruling sought; lacks jurisdiction for counts 1 and 2.
Whether the association must exhaust for the CUTPA claim	Association contends CUTPA relief may be pursued without exhaustion.	Department cannot award CUTPA remedies; exhaustion not necessary or required by CUTPA.	CUTPA does not require exhaustion; private action allowed after ascertainable loss without prior agency exhaustion.
Whether association has associational standing to pursue CUTPA	Association argues third prong satisfied; relief injunctive/ascertainable loss may inure to members without individual testimony.	Test requires individual participation; insufficient for standing.	Association has standing to pursue CUTPA injunctive relief and ascertainable loss without testimony from all members.
Remand scope for CUTPA relief	Association seeks remand for liability determination and damages hearing; no compensatory damages sought.	Remand unnecessary if no proven CUTPA violation; defendant favored.	Remand is appropriate for the CUTPA claim to allow fact-finding on liability and relief; other aspects affirmed.

Connecticut Mobile Home Assn., Inc. v. Jensen's, Inc., 178 Conn. 586 (1979) (exhaustion of admin remedies doctrine governs standing for declaratory relief)
A Secondino & Son, Inc. v. LoRicco, 215 Conn. 336 (1990) (ascertainable loss and standing concepts under CUTPA)
Neighborhood Builders, Inc. v. Madison, 294 Conn. 651 (2010) (ascertainable loss and associational standing under CUTPA)
Hinchliffe v. American Motors Corp., 184 Conn. 607 (1981) (ascertainable loss need not be a precise dollar amount)
Ulbrich v. Groth, 310 Conn. 375 (2013) (punitive damages considerations under CUTPA)
Collins v. Anthem Health Plans, Inc., 275 Conn. 309 (2005) (standards for proving damages and related relief under CUTPA)
Griswold v. Union Labor Life Ins. Co., 186 Conn. 507 (1982) (administrative remedies may be futile where agency cannot grant requested relief)
D’Angelo Development & Construction Corp. v. Cordovano, 121 Conn. App. 165 (2010) (standing and review considerations in representational actions)
Piquet v. Chester, 306 Conn. 173 (2012) (exhaustion doctrine and administrative remediess in statutory schemes)