Fairchild Heights, Inc. v. Dickal, 45 A.3d 627 (2012)
- Citation
- Fairchild Heights, Inc. v. Dickal, 45 A.3d 627 (2012)
- Parent Document
- Fairchild Heights, Inc. v. Dickal, 45 A.3d 627 (2012)
- Jurisdiction
- Connecticut (state)
- Effective Date
- 2012-06-26
Other Sections in This Document (97)
- Fairchild Heights, Inc. v. Dickal, 45 A.3d 627 (2012)
- Fairchild Heights, Inc. v. Dickal, 45 A.3d 627 (2012)
- Fairchild Heights, Inc. v. Dickal, 45 A.3d 627 (2012)
- Fairchild Heights, Inc. v. Dickal, 45 A.3d 627 (2012)
- Fairchild Heights, Inc. v. Dickal, 45 A.3d 627 (2012)
- Fairchild Heights, Inc. v. Dickal, 45 A.3d 627 (2012)
- Fairchild Heights, Inc. v. Dickal, 45 A.3d 627 (2012)
- Fairchild Heights, Inc. v. Dickal, 45 A.3d 627 (2012)
- Fairchild Heights, Inc. v. Dickal, 45 A.3d 627 (2012)
- Fairchild Heights, Inc. v. Dickal, 45 A.3d 627 (2012)
- Fairchild Heights, Inc. v. Dickal, 45 A.3d 627 (2012)
- Fairchild Heights, Inc. v. Dickal, 45 A.3d 627 (2012)
- Fairchild Heights, Inc. v. Dickal, 45 A.3d 627 (2012)
- Fairchild Heights, Inc. v. Dickal, 45 A.3d 627 (2012)
- Fairchild Heights, Inc. v. Dickal, 45 A.3d 627 (2012)
- Fairchild Heights, Inc. v. Dickal, 45 A.3d 627 (2012)
- Fairchild Heights, Inc. v. Dickal, 45 A.3d 627 (2012)
- Fairchild Heights, Inc. v. Dickal, 45 A.3d 627 (2012)
- Fairchild Heights, Inc. v. Dickal, 45 A.3d 627 (2012)
- Fairchild Heights, Inc. v. Dickal, 45 A.3d 627 (2012)
- Fairchild Heights, Inc. v. Dickal, 45 A.3d 627 (2012)
- Fairchild Heights, Inc. v. Dickal, 45 A.3d 627 (2012)
- Fairchild Heights, Inc. v. Dickal, 45 A.3d 627 (2012)
- Fairchild Heights, Inc. v. Dickal, 45 A.3d 627 (2012)
- Fairchild Heights, Inc. v. Dickal, 45 A.3d 627 (2012)
- Fairchild Heights, Inc. v. Dickal, 45 A.3d 627 (2012)
- Fairchild Heights, Inc. v. Dickal, 45 A.3d 627 (2012)
- Fairchild Heights, Inc. v. Dickal, 45 A.3d 627 (2012)
- Fairchild Heights, Inc. v. Dickal, 45 A.3d 627 (2012)
- Fairchild Heights, Inc. v. Dickal, 45 A.3d 627 (2012)
- Fairchild Heights, Inc. v. Dickal, 45 A.3d 627 (2012)
- Fairchild Heights, Inc. v. Dickal, 45 A.3d 627 (2012)
- Fairchild Heights, Inc. v. Dickal, 45 A.3d 627 (2012)
- Fairchild Heights, Inc. v. Dickal, 45 A.3d 627 (2012)
- Fairchild Heights, Inc. v. Dickal, 45 A.3d 627 (2012)
- Fairchild Heights, Inc. v. Dickal, 45 A.3d 627 (2012)
- Fairchild Heights, Inc. v. Dickal, 45 A.3d 627 (2012)
- Fairchild Heights, Inc. v. Dickal, 45 A.3d 627 (2012)
- Fairchild Heights, Inc. v. Dickal, 45 A.3d 627 (2012)
- Fairchild Heights, Inc. v. Dickal, 45 A.3d 627 (2012)
- Fairchild Heights, Inc. v. Dickal, 45 A.3d 627 (2012)
- Fairchild Heights, Inc. v. Dickal, 45 A.3d 627 (2012)
- Section 21-80a
- Section 21-80a
- Section 21-80a
- Section 21-80a
- Section 21-80a
- Section 21-80a
- Section 21-80a
- Section 21-80a
- Section 21-80a
- Section 21-80a
- Section 21-80a
- Section 21-80a
- Section 21-80a
- Section 21-80a
- Section 21-80a
- Section 21-80a
- Section 21-80a
- Section 21-80a
- Section 21-80a
- Section 21-80a
- Section 21-80a
- Section 21-80a
- Section 21-80a
- Section 21-80a
- Section 21-80a
- Section 21-80a
- Section 21-80a
- Section 21-80a
- Section 21-80a
- Section 21-80a
- Section 21-80a
- Section 21-80a
- Section 21-80a
- Section 21-80a
- Section 21-80a
- Section 21-80a
- Section 21-80a
- Section 21-80a
- Section 21-80a
- Section 21-80a
- Section 21-80a
- Section 21-80a
- Section 21-80a
- Section 21-80a
- Section 21-80a
- Section 21-80a
- Section 21-80a
- Section 21-80a
- Section 21-80a
- Section 21-80a
- Section 21-80a
- Section 21-80a
- Section 21-80a
- Section 21-80a
- Section 21-80a
Full Text
1,687 charsThe defendants appealed from the judgment of the trial court to the Appellate Court, challenging the trial court's conclusions on each of the asserted special defenses. The Appellate Court affirmed the trial court's conclusion that the park rules and regulations were applied fairly to park residents because the trial court's findings were supported by the evidence and, therefore, were not clearly erroneous. Id., at 170, 983 A.2d 35. The Appellate Court also upheld the trial court's conclusion that the summary process action was not barred by § 21-80a. Id., at 178, 983 A.2d 35. That court concluded that, even if the defendants had engaged in conduct protected under § 21-80a (a), the exception under § 21-80a (b)(1), which permits a park owner to proceed with a summary *632 process action when a resident "is using the dwelling unit or the premises ... for a purpose which is in violation of the rental agreement," applied. In particular, the court concluded that § 21-80a (b)(1) was ambiguous; Fairchild Heights, Inc. v. Dickal, supra, 118 Conn.App. at 174, 983 A.2d 35; and broadly interpreted the relevant language to encompass situations in which a "resident's conduct is in violation of a material provision of the rental agreement," such as the defendants' parking of excess vehicles in breach of the rental agreement. Id., at 173, 983 A.2d 35. Finally, the Appellate Court affirmed the trial court's conclusion that the defendants were not entitled to a defense of inequitable forfeiture due to their "wilful" breach of the rental agreement and the doctrine of unclean hands. Id., at 179, 983 A.2d 35. This appeal followed. Additional facts will be set forth as necessary.