§ 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

3,119 chars

We recognize that this outcome results in a lien
existing on the defendant’s land records that, in some
circumstances, is potentially invalid if the plaintiff were
to prevail on its § 8-270a defense and that the plaintiff
must wait until it is sued by the defendant to assert
this defense.5 But the legislature has made a clear policy
decision to make landlords liable in the first instance
for payments made by municipalities under the act, to
permit municipalities to enforce this liability through
a lien on the property and, finally, to permit a landlord to
raise the affirmative defense only when the municipality
brings an action against the landlord. See Adesokan v.
Bloomfield, 347 Conn. 416, 446–47, 297 A.3d 983 (2023)
(‘‘it is well established that ‘the primary responsibility
for formulating public policy must remain with the legis-
lature,’ ’’ and, ‘‘[o]nce the legislature has made its policy
choice through statute, we are constrained to interpret
the statutory language, not to decide on and implement
our own policy choices’’). Nor can we conclude, as the
trial court did, that our construction of these statutory
provisions leads to an absurd or unworkable result.
Concluding that a certain construction of statutory pro-
At the beginning of legislative debate on the matter, Representative
Thomas P. Brunnock asked, ‘‘if a tenant was the one who had caused the
disrepair of the property to result in building code enforcement violations,
would the landlord still be ultimately liable for the relocation costs if the
relocation was necessitated by those building code violations?’’ 25 H.R. Proc.
Pt. 16, 1982 Sess., pp. 5370–71. Representative Paul J. Garavel responded,
‘‘I believe that is true.’’ Id., p. 5371. Representative Robert Farr openly
questioned this during ongoing discussions of the amendments: ‘‘[Represen-
tative] Brunnock properly pointed out in some cases the tenants may have
caused it, and perhaps we need an amendment to exclude those cases
. . . .’’ Id., p. 5375. Despite these conversations, P.A. 82-399 was passed,
with its proponents stressing that, without its provisions, the statute ‘‘has
put an absolutely intolerable burden [on] the cities in our state.’’ Id., p.
5390, remarks of Representative Gerard B. Patton. As an example of this,
Representative Brunnock referenced the expenses the city of Waterbury
faced when a fire required relocating thirty families. Id., pp. 5377–78.
5
We offer no opinion on whether the plaintiff would prevail on a § 8-270a
defense if the defendant were to enforce its lien on the plaintiff’s property
in a civil action.
0, 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 13

Other Sections in This Document (198)

Full Text