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

2,361 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.
Page 4                        CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                                   0, 0

Other Sections in This Document (198)

Full Text