Section 46a-64c

Citation: Section 46a-64c
Parent Document: Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities Ex Rel. Arnold v. Forvil, 25 A.3d 632 (2011)
Jurisdiction: Connecticut (state)
Effective Date: 2011-08-30
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2318907/commission-on-human-rights-oppo... ↗

Full Text

976 chars

While it is outside the province of this court to consider the factual accuracy of the purported disadvantages of guarantees, we note that none of them implicates a violation of the laws of our state. The same cannot be said, however, for the purported advantage of a cash deposit to which the defendants’ counsel alluded at oral argument before this court. When asked how the defendants were practically affected by accepting a guarantee rather than cash, counsel suggested: “I think if I had a dollar for every landlord that comingles security deposits, I’d be pretty well off.” While we do not know whether counsel is correct in this characterization of the state’s landlords, we note that such conduct is expressly prohibited by General Statutes § 47a-21 (h), and we express our hope that counsel was incorrect in characterizing the defendants’ intentions, as well as our hope that the landlords of the state do, in fact, conduct themselves in accordance with our laws. 18

Other Sections in This Document (123)

Full Text