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

2,317 chars

§§ 8-266 through 8-282, also known as the URRA, to
       determine whether a city can maintain a lien against a
       property to secure repayment of costs incurred when
       relocating residents who find themselves displaced fol-
       lowing the city’s enforcement of its building codes, even
       if the property owner did not cause the building to
       become uninhabitable. The defendant, the city of Hart-
       ford, contends that the trial court improperly dis-
       charged its lien on the property of the plaintiff, PPC
       Realty, LLC. Relying on the statutory text of the act,
       we agree with the defendant that its lien was proper,
       and we reverse the trial court’s judgment.
          The following undisputed facts and procedural his-
       tory relate to the defendant’s claim on appeal. The plain-
       tiff owns real property located at 820 Wethersfield
       Avenue in Hartford, which was improved with a three
       story apartment building with forty residential units.
       On March 7, 2019, at approximately 7:18 a.m., a third
       party started a fire on the second floor of the apartment
       building. Both parties have stipulated that the fire was
       not the fault of the plaintiff or any apartment resident.
       The third party was later convicted of arson for starting
       this fire.
          The ensuing blaze caused water, smoke, and fire dam-
       age, rendering the apartment units uninhabitable imme-
       diately and for the foreseeable future. Less than one
       hour later, at approximately 8 a.m. that same day, the
       defendant provided the plaintiff with a ‘‘Notice Viola-
       tion/Emergency and Order to Abate,’’ which stated that
       the defendant was condemning the property and order-
       ing all residents to vacate their units until the apartment
       building was repaired. The defendant placed a placard
       on the plaintiff’s property declaring the building ‘‘[u]nfit
       for [h]uman [o]ccupancy.’’ At the time of the fire, resi-
       dents occupied thirty-nine of the building’s forty apart-
       ment units. Important to the dispute before us, the
       defendant provided shelter and relocation services to
Page 2                    CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                        0, 0

Other Sections in This Document (198)

Full Text