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

2,834 chars

is not difficult to recognize that the act’s framework
works a balance. In the event that a landlord arguably
is not at fault for the displacement of residents from
its building, it might not be able to discharge the munici-
pality’s lien, and, yet, the municipality might have diffi-
culty foreclosing on the lien or suing on the landlord’s
liability. In this situation, the municipality and the land-
lord might be forced to work with the landlord’s insur-
ance company or potential lenders to reach a solution
that meets everyone’s interests: the landlord in
reopening a revenue stream from its investment, and
the municipality in recovering some of its costs and
returning housing stock to the market, with all of the
economic and social benefits that flow from such a
resolution. It is the legislature’s prerogative to address
and remedy any perceived inconsistency. See, e.g.,
Trinity Christian School v. Commission on Human
Rights & Opportunities, 329 Conn. 684, 698 n.18, 189
A.3d 79 (2018) (‘‘[o]f course, as in all cases involving
the construction of a statute, if the legislature disagrees
with our interpretation . . . it is free to enact legisla-
tion’’ to the contrary). We cannot conclude that the
statutes as they exist are either bizarre or unworkable;
nor will we import language that we think might make
the statutes more workable, or even more rational.6
6
The legislative history of §§ 8-268, 8-270 and 8-270a manifests the concern
of some legislators about saddling landlords with relocation costs for dis-
placed tenants; see footnote 4 of this opinion; and of other legislators about
saddling cities with these same relocation costs from code enforcement,
resulting in a disincentive for cities to provide displaced persons with needed
aid in an emergency such as what occurred in this case. See 25 H.R. Proc., Pt.
16, 1982 Sess., pp. 5381–82, remarks of Representative Thomas P. Brunnock
(‘‘[C]ertainly the cities find themselves in a paradoxical situation when they
look at a building that’s substandard and the first question that they have
to ask themselves is can we afford to relocate people. And that’s really a
sad commentary . . . .’’). Given these competing concerns, it is unremark-
able that the legislature arrived at a solution that does not fully protect
landlords or cities from the relocation costs associated with displaced res-
idents.
Page 18 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL November 5, 2024

Other Sections in This Document (198)

Full Text