Eamiello v. Liberty Mobile Home Sales, Inc., 208 Conn. 620 (1988)

Citation: Eamiello v. Liberty Mobile Home Sales, Inc., 208 Conn. 620 (1988)
Parent Document: Eamiello v. Liberty Mobile Home Sales, Inc., 208 Conn. 620 (1988)
Jurisdiction: Connecticut (state)
Effective Date: 1988-08-16
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/7893279/eamiello-v-liberty-mobile-home-... ↗

Full Text

1,758 chars

*623In its appeal from the judgment, the defendant claims that the trial court erred in concluding that: (1) the parties’ rental agreement imposed resale conditions that were not permitted by General Statutes § 21-79;* 2 *624(2) General Statutes (Rev. to 1985) § 21-70 (c)* *3 gave the department of consumer protection authority to approve resale standards in regard to mobile homes, other than aesthetic standards; (3) the plaintiffs had satisfied the requirements of the supplemental judgment in an unreported action the defendant had *625brought against the town of Prospect; (4) General Statutes § 21-68a4 is not an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority when it permits a local building inspector to determine whether a mobile home is safe and sanitary, but does not provide any measuring standards; (5) § 21-79 (a) is constitutional despite the claim that it amounts to an unjustified taking of property;5 (6) § 47a-4a applies to an owner of a mobile home located in a mobile home park and precludes recovery on the counterclaim for rent from December 1,1984; (7) a permanent injunction should be issued prohibiting the defendant from enforcing the resale standards in the parties’ lease in order to prevent the on-site sale of the plaintiffs’ mobile home; (8) the defendant’s attempt to enforce the resale standards in the parties’ lease constitutes a violation of CUTPA; and (9) the plaintiffs should be awarded compensatory damages pursuant to the CUTPA count of their complaint. We find no error *626on the first seven claims, but error on the eighth and ninth. Accordingly, we remand the case to the trial court with direction to deny relief on the CUTPA count of the complaint and to recalculate the amount of compensatory damages.

Other Sections in This Document (80)

Full Text