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
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2295282/fairchild-heights-inc-v-dickal/ ↗

Full Text

864 chars

In sum, we disagree with the Appellate Court's determination that § 21-80a (b)(1) is ambiguous and that a broad interpretation is necessary to balance the interests of park owners and residents. On the contrary, when a resident contends that § 21-80a (a) bars a summary process action brought pursuant to § 21-80(b)(1)(C), we conclude that the park owner may maintain such action nevertheless by establishing that the resident is: (1) in material noncompliance with the lease; and (2) using the premises for a purpose that violates the rental agreement. Accordingly, we conclude that the Appellate Court improperly interpreted § 21-80a (b)(1) broadly to allow a park owner to dispossess a resident whose conduct was merely "in violation of a material provision of the rental agreement." Fairchild Heights, Inc. v. Dickal, supra, 118 Conn. App. at 175, 983 A.2d 35.

Other Sections in This Document (97)

Full Text