350 Conn. 347
Conn.2024Background
- Plaintiff, PPC Realty, owned an apartment building in Hartford that was rendered uninhabitable by an arson fire set by a third party (not the plaintiff or tenants).
- The City of Hartford immediately condemned the property post-fire and provided relocation assistance to all displaced tenants.
- The city placed a lien on the property, seeking reimbursement for relocation costs from the landlord, pursuant to the Uniform Relocation Assistance Act (URRA), specifically §§ 8-266 through 8-282.
- Plaintiff challenged the lien, arguing it was not liable since it was not at fault for the displacement; the trial court agreed and discharged the lien.
- The city appealed, and the Connecticut Supreme Court reviewed whether the lien was valid under the URRA, even absent landlord fault.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether tenants qualify as "displaced persons" under URRA when not displaced by landlord’s fault | Displacement was caused by arson, not by code enforcement, so tenants are not “displaced persons” under the statute | Displacement results from code enforcement actions, regardless of what initially made the property uninhabitable | Tenants are “displaced persons” because the city’s code enforcement (condemnation) directly displaced them |
| Whether landlord can use lack of fault as defense to immediately discharge the city’s lien | Affirmative defense under § 8-270a (landlord not at fault under § 47a-7) should invalidate lien now | Affirmative defense is only available if the city files a civil action, not to discharge a lien directly | Affirmative defense cannot be used to discharge lien; it applies only if a civil action is brought by the city |
Key Cases Cited
- Dukes v. Durante, 192 Conn. 207 (Connecticut Supreme Court held that condition making property uninhabitable can arise from any cause, but code enforcement is what triggers URRA displacement)
- PNC Bank, N.A. v. Kelepecz, 289 Conn. 692 (Connecticut Supreme Court explained that the validity of a lien is a question of law if facts are undisputed)
- Battersby v. Battersby, 218 Conn. 467 (Connecticut Supreme Court reiterates that unambiguous statutory language cannot be modified by courts)
- Board of Education v. State Board of Education, 278 Conn. 326 (Connecticut Supreme Court on harmonious construction of statutory sections)