214 Conn.App. 720
Conn. App. Ct.2022Background
- Tenant Regina Mention lived in a six-unit New Haven building; she paid a subsidized share of rent ($226/mo) under HUD Section 8.
- Beginning September 2017 the premises (and multiple other units) were infested with insects and rodents; tenant reported the problem to the landlord and later to New Haven Livable City Initiative on September 17, 2018.
- Initiative inspector ordered extermination under New Haven Code tit. V, art. III, ¶ 309 (owner responsible where infestation exists in two or more units); defendant treated units and Initiative issued a notice of compliance on December 19, 2018.
- Tenant filed a § 47a-14h housing code enforcement action (filed November 15, 2018), deposited her rent share with the court, and sought extermination orders, rent abatement and other relief; defendant counterclaimed alleging tenant obstructed access.
- Trial court found infestation persisted from Sept. 2017 to at least Dec. 19, 2018, that remediation was not reasonable (slow/ineffective and other units remained infested), ruled for tenant on complaint and counterclaim, awarded return of rent paid ($1,130), abated any arrearage and six months prospective abatement of tenant’s share, and ordered building-wide eradication within two months.
- On appeal defendant argued the court lacked jurisdiction to consider pre‑agency-evidence, misinterpreted the housing code, and that the code was void for vagueness; tenant cross‑appealed the abatement calculation (tenant argued abatement should be based on full market rent rather than her subsidized share).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject‑matter jurisdiction to consider evidence predating the agency complaint | Mention complied with §47a‑14h notice requirement; court had jurisdiction to hear the case | Court could not consider evidence of violations occurring before tenant filed with the municipal agency because jurisdiction ripened only after that filing | Court: compliance with §47a‑14h gave jurisdiction over the complaint; defendant’s attack on pre‑filing evidence was an unpreserved evidentiary challenge, not a jurisdictional defect, so appellate review declined |
| Whether defendant violated the New Haven housing code (owner duty to exterminate; reasonableness of remediation) | Tenant: code requires owner to exterminate when infestation in ≥2 units; defendant failed to control/eliminate infestation across building | Defendant: it engaged licensed extermination and complied with Initiative; actions were reasonable | Court: code unambiguous (owner must exterminate when infestation in ≥2 units; extermination means control and elimination); factual findings that remediation was too slow and ineffective were supported by trial evidence and not clearly erroneous — violation affirmed |
| As‑applied vagueness of the housing code (and arbitrary enforcement) | Implied: tenant argued code was applied properly to require full extermination | Defendant: lacked notice what ‘‘infestation’’ or ‘‘reasonable’’ remediation means; enforcement arbitrary because Initiative issued notice of compliance yet court found remediation unreasonable | Court: exhaustion inapplicable (local agency); Golding test failed — defendant had adequate notice (definitions of infestation/extermination and enforcement procedure) and did not prove arbitrary or standardless enforcement |
| Rent abatement measure for a subsidized tenant under §47a‑14h | Tenant: abatement should be calculated on full market rent when subsidizing entity not joined | Defendant: abatement should be limited to tenant’s share deposited with court | Court: statute permits return/abatement only for amounts actually paid into court; §47a‑14h(h) requires tenant to deposit her share and permits, but does not require, joining the subsidizing entity — abatement properly based on tenant’s deposited share |
Key Cases Cited
- Dugan v. Milledge, 196 Conn. 591 (Conn. 1985) (notification to municipal housing agency is a mandatory condition precedent to §47a‑14h jurisdiction)
- State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 (Conn. 1989) (four‑part test for review of unpreserved constitutional claims)
- Edwards v. Code Enforcement Committee, 13 Conn. App. 1 (Conn. App. 1987) (local code enforcement bodies are not state agencies for purposes of the UAPA/exhaustion doctrine)
- Rodriguez v. Ancona, 88 Conn. App. 193 (Conn. App. 2005) (interpretation of “rent” in landlord‑tenant statutes; damages based on all rent payments where statute uses term “rent”)
- A Better Way Wholesale Autos, Inc. v. Saint Paul, 338 Conn. 651 (Conn. 2021) (standard of review for subject‑matter jurisdiction issues)