§ 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

2,345 chars

as a result of the criminal action of a third party.’’
       (Emphasis in original.)
         The plaintiff filed an application in the trial court
       to discharge the defendant’s lien pursuant to General
       Statutes § 49-51 and also requested that the court enjoin
       the defendant from taking further action against the
       property or insurance proceeds in accordance with Gen-
       eral Statutes § 52-471 et seq. The plaintiff asserted that
       there was no ‘‘probable cause to sustain the validity of
       the lien’’ under § 49-51.1 Because the plaintiff’s argu-
       ments centered around the legal interpretation of the
       act’s provisions, the parties stipulated to the underlying
       facts and tried the case to the court.
          The trial court issued a memorandum of decision,
       ruling in the plaintiff’s favor and finding ‘‘by clear and
       convincing evidence, and as a matter of law . . . [t]hat
       the invalidity of the [defendant’s] lien is established.’’
       The court stated: ‘‘[I]t is undisputed that arson led to
       the displacement of the tenants, not municipal code
       enforcement activities based on the landlord’s viola-
       tions of any code. The statutory liens authorized by the
       [act] are not applicable in this context.’’2 The trial
       court’s apparent reasoning was consistent with the
       plaintiff’s position that, because the plaintiff’s actions
       did not cause the fire, the residents were not displaced
       as a direct result of the defendant’s condemnation of the
       building, thereby preventing the defendant from recover-
       ing relocation costs under the act.
         The trial court explained that the interplay of General
       Statutes §§ 8-268, 8-270 and 8-270a supported its deter-
       mination that the lien was improper because the plain-
         1
           The plaintiff initially filed what it has described as two ‘‘identical actions’’
       to discharge the defendant’s lien, which the court later consolidated.
         2
           The trial court also held that the defendant’s lien was invalid under
       General Statutes §§ 49-73a and 49-73b. The defendant has not relied on these
       statutes in this appeal.
Page 4                   CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                       0, 0

Other Sections in This Document (198)

Full Text