175 Conn. App. 681
Conn. App. Ct.2017Background
- Defendant Barnes rented an apartment from Renaissance Management; landlord served a notice to quit (Sept. 3, 2014) and commenced summary process (Sept. 15, 2014).
- Barnes asserted a special defense under the retaliatory eviction statute, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 47a-20(2): he complained to a municipal authority, which found housing code violations within six months of the action.
- Barnes moved for summary judgment; trial court granted it, concluding § 47a-20 barred the landlord’s action and that no § 47a-20a exceptions applied.
- Trial court held Visco v. Cody’s fitness-and-habitability gloss (requirement that defects materially affect fitness/habitability) applies to § 47a-20(3) (repairs) but not to § 47a-20(2) (municipal findings).
- After oral argument in the appellate court but before decision, Barnes vacated the apartment; the appellate court ordered supplemental briefing on mootness and potential exceptions.
- Appellant argued the "capable of repetition, yet evading review" and collateral-consequences exceptions to mootness; the court found neither applicable and dismissed the appeal as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Visco’s fitness-and-habitability requirement for repairs (§ 47a-20(3)) also limits § 47a-20(2) municipal findings | Visco should apply to § 47a-20(2); landlord sought clarification so minor code complaints won’t bar possession actions | Municipal agency findings under § 47a-20(2) stand without requiring a fitness/habitability showing | Not decided on the merits—appeal dismissed as moot; court declined to reach Visco question because exceptions to mootness were not satisfied |
| Whether appellate review is barred by mootness after defendant vacated | Landlord: exceptions apply (capable of repetition; collateral consequences) so appeal remains justiciable | Defendant: vacation of premises renders appeal moot; exceptions do not apply | Appeal is moot; neither the capable-of-repetition nor collateral-consequences exceptions applied |
| Whether any § 47a-20a exception allowed landlord to proceed (e.g., fraud/nonpayment) | Landlord argued fraud (failure to report income) and that HUD payments do not negate rent for § 47a-20a analysis | Barnes relied on § 47a-20 bar and that no § 47a-20a exception fits | Trial court found § 47a-20a exceptions not shown; appellate court did not reach merits after finding case moot |
| Whether failure to decide Visco application inflicts collateral consequences on landlord class | Landlord claimed broad collateral harm to landlords if Visco not applied to § 47a-20(2) | Defendant argued collateral-consequences doctrine applies only to consequences specific to the appellant | Court: collateral-consequences exception requires harms specific to appellant; landlord’s concerns were general and speculative, so exception fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Visco v. Cody, 16 Conn. App. 444 (discusses fitness-and-habitability requirement for repairs under retaliatory eviction statute)
- Wendy V. v. Santiago, 319 Conn. 540 (framework for mootness and exceptions)
- In re Emma F., 315 Conn. 414 (mootness: appeals must remain live throughout pendency)
- Putman v. Kennedy, 279 Conn. 162 (application of collateral-consequences doctrine to preserve otherwise moot appeals)