Section 21-80a
- Citation
- Section 21-80a
- 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
713 chars[11] Prior to a lease change in 2004, the plaintiff had an "unofficial rule" that permitted tenants to keep more than two vehicles at no additional fee. In 2004, the plaintiff changed its rule to one under which tenants could have two vehicles at no charge but would pay a fee for any additional vehicles. In 2007, the plaintiff again changed that rule to allow tenants who previously had parked additional vehicles to do so at no charge. Alan Dickal testified that he did not accept the new lease offered by the plaintiff, a condition of which was that the defendants must pay back fees, because the defendants did not think it was fair to be charged for the use of a lot for which they already were paying rent.