Housing Authority v. Olesen, 31 Conn. App. 359 (1993)
- Citation
- Housing Authority v. Olesen, 31 Conn. App. 359 (1993)
- Parent Document
- Housing Authority v. Olesen, 31 Conn. App. 359 (1993)
- Jurisdiction
- Connecticut (state)
- Effective Date
- 1993-05-18
Other Sections in This Document (21)
- Housing Authority v. Olesen, 31 Conn. App. 359 (1993)
- Housing Authority v. Olesen, 31 Conn. App. 359 (1993)
- Housing Authority v. Olesen, 31 Conn. App. 359 (1993)
- Housing Authority v. Olesen, 31 Conn. App. 359 (1993)
- Housing Authority v. Olesen, 31 Conn. App. 359 (1993)
- Housing Authority v. Olesen, 31 Conn. App. 359 (1993)
- Housing Authority v. Olesen, 31 Conn. App. 359 (1993)
- Housing Authority v. Olesen, 31 Conn. App. 359 (1993)
- Housing Authority v. Olesen, 31 Conn. App. 359 (1993)
- Housing Authority v. Olesen, 31 Conn. App. 359 (1993)
- Housing Authority v. Olesen, 31 Conn. App. 359 (1993)
- Housing Authority v. Olesen, 31 Conn. App. 359 (1993)
- Housing Authority v. Olesen, 31 Conn. App. 359 (1993)
- Housing Authority v. Olesen, 31 Conn. App. 359 (1993)
- Housing Authority v. Olesen, 31 Conn. App. 359 (1993)
- Housing Authority v. Olesen, 31 Conn. App. 359 (1993)
- Housing Authority v. Olesen, 31 Conn. App. 359 (1993)
- Housing Authority v. Olesen, 31 Conn. App. 359 (1993)
- Housing Authority v. Olesen, 31 Conn. App. 359 (1993)
- Housing Authority v. Olesen, 31 Conn. App. 359 (1993)
- Housing Authority v. Olesen, 31 Conn. App. 359 (1993)
Full Text
869 charsThe dispositive issue in this case is whether the presence of paint with a lead content in excess of relevant federal and state standards bars the collection of rent even if the landlord is not aware of the problem at the time of nonpayment. The plaintiff first claims that the presence of lead-based paint should not act as a bar to the collection of rent because it fully observed the federal regulation in effect at the time, which required paint inspections only at unit turnover or as part of routine periodic unit inspections. See 24 C.F.R. § 965.704 (1988). The plaintiff maintains, therefore, that it was under no duty to inspect the premises for lead-based paint at the time of nonpayment. We note that although the trial court found the plaintiff to have such a duty, we decline to address this issue because it is irrelevant to the disposition of the appeal.