§ 1-2z

Citation: § 1-2z
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

2,482 chars

tion 1 of this act, or section 8-270, as amended by section
2 of this act, such town, city or borough may bring a
civil action against such landlord in the superior court
. . . for the recovery of such payments . . . . In any
such action, it shall be an affirmative defense for the
landlord that the displacement was not the result of
the landlord’s violation of section 47a-7 . . . .’’
(Emphasis added.)
Thus, the legislature has plainly provided that, in the
first instance, pursuant to §§ 8-268 (a) and 8-270 (a), a
landlord is liable to the municipality for payments the
municipality has made to or on behalf of displaced
residents. Both parties acknowledge that a plain reading
of these statutes allows municipalities to take at least
two actions to secure the recovery of their relocation
expenses from a landlord: they can place a lien on a
landlord’s property under §§ 8-268 (a) and 8-270 (a),
and they can commence a civil action under § 8-270a.
As an affirmative defense to the civil action, the final
sentence of § 8-270a permits a landlord to avoid liability
if the displacement was not the result of the landlord’s
violation of § 47a-7. The question before us is whether
the plaintiff can invoke the shield provided in this final
sentence of § 8-270a and use it as a sword in this applica-
tion to render the lien invalid.
We conclude that the text of §§ 8-268 (a) and 8-270
(a) unambiguously forecloses the plaintiff’s use of the
affirmative defense provided by § 8-270a in connection
with its application to declare invalid and to discharge
the defendant’s lien. The legislature provided § 8-270a
only as an affirmative defense to a civil action seeking
to recover relocation costs. It did not include any similar
language in §§ 8-268 and 8-270, which permit a munici-
pality to place a lien on the property. We cannot second-
guess the legislature’s policy decision to permit a munic-
ipality to impose a lien without permitting resistance
to it by a landlord. In short, the plaintiff attempts in this
0, 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 11

Other Sections in This Document (198)

Full Text