PPC Realty, LLC v. Hartford, 350 Conn. 347 (2024)

Citation: PPC Realty, LLC v. Hartford, 350 Conn. 347 (2024)
Parent Document: PPC Realty, LLC v. Hartford, 350 Conn. 347 (2024)
Jurisdiction: Connecticut (state)
Effective Date: 2024-08-12
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10266509/ppc-realty-llc-v-hartford/ ↗

Full Text

2,435 chars

cation assistance it had provided to the building’s
         residents amounted, cumulatively, to $274,564.95. The
         defendant ‘‘further claim[ed] a lien on said premises
         . . . against the proceeds of any policy of insurance
         providing coverage for loss or damage caused by fire,
         if a loss or damage has occurred.’’ At the time of the
         fire, the plaintiff maintained a fire insurance policy for
         up to $5 million in property damage. From this coverage,
         the plaintiff and a property mortgagor jointly received
         $1.6 million in insurance proceeds. The plaintiff has
         stipulated that it is unaware of any evidence that its
         insurance provider ever contacted the town clerk’s
         office about whether liens existed on the property.
            On March 11, 2019, the defendant also sent the plain-
         tiff a letter explaining that ‘‘[t]he [defendant] must be
         reimbursed for all relocation costs related to these dis-
         placed tenants.’’ The plaintiff’s counsel ‘‘strenuously
         object[ed]’’ to the defendant’s position and requested that
         the defendant discharge the lien. The plaintiff con-
         tended that ‘‘[it] did not violate any code requiring
         enforcement by the [defendant]. Instead, the structure
         was rendered unsafe as a result of the criminal action
         of a third party.’’ (Emphasis in original.)
           The plaintiff filed an application in the trial court
         to discharge the defendant’s lien pursuant to General
         Statutes § 49-51 and also requested that the court enjoin
         the defendant from taking further action against the
         property or insurance proceeds in accordance with
         General Statutes § 52-471 et seq. The plaintiff asserted
         that there was no ‘‘probable cause to sustain the validity
         of the lien’’ under § 49-51.1 Because the plaintiff’s argu-
         ments centered around the legal interpretation of the
         act’s provisions, the parties stipulated to the underlying
         facts and tried the case to the court.
           1
             The plaintiff initially filed what it has described as two ‘‘identical actions’’
         to discharge the defendant’s lien, which the court later consolidated.
November 5, 2024              CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                                   Page 7

Other Sections in This Document (198)

Full Text