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
1,697 charsIn addition, the terms safety and welfare appear nowhere in § 21-80a (b). Such concerns are expressly addressed, however, elsewhere in the landlord tenant eviction laws. Specifically, the legislature has authorized the eviction of tenants who have engaged in conduct that creates health or safety risks to other tenants, but it has imposed more stringent conditions for evicting tenants who are deserving of heightened protection. Compare General Statutes § 47a-23 (a)(F) (lessor)[6] and *641 General Statutes § 21-80(a)(1) (mobile park tenants who lease their home from park owner)[7] with General Statutes § 47a-23c (b)(1)(C) (elderly, blind or disabled lessors)[8] and General Statutes § 21-80(b)(1)(B) (mobile park residents who own their mobile home). One group entitled to such heightened protection is mobile home park residents who own their home, like the defendants in the present case, who can be evicted upon proof of "[m]aterial noncompliance ... with any statute or regulation materially affecting the health and safety of other residents or materially affecting the physical condition of the park...." General Statutes § 21-80(b)(1)(B). Notably, this standard is higher than the one articulated by the majority in two ways, both in terms of its dual emphasis on materiality and the legal source of the requisite violation. Given that the legislature expressly has addressed eviction for conduct that creates the very risk identified by the majority, presumably the legislature would have either used the same language in § 21-80a (b)(1), used comparable language, or expressly referred to § 21-80(b)(1) had it intended to create a safety and welfare exception in § 21-80a (b)(1).[9]