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

2,385 chars

all residents who lived in these units. The plaintiff does
not contest the necessity of the defendant’s actions in
response to this emergency.
The day after the fire, the defendant filed a lien on
the plaintiff’s property pursuant to General Statutes
§§ 8-268 and 8-270. The lien provided that it was ‘‘for
all reimbursable relocation assistance expenses, includ-
ing, if any, but not limited to, ongoing expenses for
temporary housing (hotel rental fees), moving, storage
and insurance of personal property, and replacement
housing made by the [defendant] to or on . . . behalf
[of] certain tenants displaced from said [p]remises due
to violation(s) of the [c]ity of Hartford [h]ousing, [b]uild-
ing, [h]ealth, and/or [f]ire [c]odes.’’ The defendant later
filed an updated lien, specifying that the relocation
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 cover-
age for loss or damage caused by fire, if a loss or damage
has occurred.’’ At the time of the fire, the plaintiff main-
tained 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
0, 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 3

Other Sections in This Document (198)

Full Text