§ 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

2,392 chars

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, including,
if any, but not limited to, ongoing expenses for tempo-
rary housing (hotel rental fees), moving, storage and
insurance of personal property, and replacement hous-
ing 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]uilding,
[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 pro-
ceeds of any policy of insurance providing coverage 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 reim-
bursed for all relocation costs related to these displaced
tenants.’’ The plaintiff’s counsel ‘‘strenuously object[ed]’’
to the defendant’s position and requested that the defen-
dant discharge the lien. The plaintiff contended that ‘‘[it]
did not violate any code requiring enforcement by the
[defendant]. Instead, the structure was rendered unsafe
0, 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 3

Other Sections in This Document (198)

Full Text