§ 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

2,464 chars

ECKER, J., concurring. I agree with the majority’s con-
         struction of the Uniform Relocation Assistance Act (URAA),
         General Statutes §§ 8-266 through 8-282, and its conclu-
         sion that the affirmative defense in General Statutes
         § 8-270a is applicable only in a civil action for the reim-
         bursement of displacement costs, but does not preclude
         the imposition of a lien on the landlord’s property pursu-
         ant to General Statutes §§ 8-268 (a) and 8-270 (a). I
         disagree with the majority, however, that this conclu-
         sion 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 affirmative 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 borough 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-
         cates that the legislature passed § 8-270a and the lien
0, 0                   CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                      Page 1

Other Sections in This Document (198)

Full Text