§ 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

2,328 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 discharged
       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 defen-
       dant provided the plaintiff with a ‘‘Notice Violation/
       Emergency and Order to Abate,’’ which stated that the
       defendant was condemning the property and ordering
       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 apartment
       units. Important to the dispute before us, the defendant
       provided shelter and relocation services to all residents
Page 2                    CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                          0, 0

Other Sections in This Document (198)

Full Text