§ 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

2,405 chars

ECKER, J., concurring. I agree with the majority’s
         construction of the Uniform Relocation Assistance Act
         (URAA), General Statutes §§ 8-266 through 8-282, and
         its conclusion that the affirmative defense in General
         Statutes § 8-270a is applicable only in a civil action for
         the reimbursement of displacement costs, but does not
         preclude the imposition of a lien on the landlord’s prop-
         erty pursuant to General Statutes §§ 8-268 (a) and 8-
         270 (a). I disagree with the majority, however, that this
         conclusion is dictated by the plain and unambiguous
         language of the URAA. In my view, the inclusion of an
         affirmative defense in § 8-270a, but the exclusion of
         such a defense in the lien provisions of §§ 8-268 (a)
         and 8-270 (a), renders the statutory scheme ambiguous
         because it is plausible that a landlord with a valid affir-
         mative defense under § 8-270a is not ‘‘liable for any
         payments made [under the URAA]’’ and, therefore, that
         the lien ‘‘to secure repayment to the town, city or bor-
         ough or the state of such payments’’ is invalid. General
         Statutes § 8-268 (a); accord General Statutes § 8-270 (a);
         see, e.g., Ledyard v. WMS Gaming, Inc., 338 Conn. 687,
         698, 258 A.3d 1268 (2021) (if text of statute ‘‘allows
         for more than one plausible meaning,’’ we ‘‘deem it
         ambiguous for purposes of the [General Statutes] § 1-
         2z analysis’’). See generally Seramonte Associates, LLC
         v. Hamden, 345 Conn. 76, 112–118, 282 A.3d 1253 (2022)
         (Ecker, J., concurring in the judgment) (explaining
         importance of proper interpretative methodology under
         § 1-2z).
            That said, I am persuaded that the better reading of
         the relevant statutes resolves this case in favor of the
         defendant, the city of Hartford. The defendant’s con-
         struction of the relevant statutes’ texts and their interre-
         lationship is more plausible for the reasons ably recited
         in the majority opinion. My review of extratextual evi-
         dence of legislative intent reinforces this view; as the
         majority observes, ‘‘the relevant legislative history indi-
0, 0                   CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                      Page 1

Other Sections in This Document (198)

Full Text