The plaintiff tenants, J and S, sought, inter alia, an order to compel the
defendants to use the money collected from them for rent to make
certain repairs to their leased premises. The plaintiffs, who had entered
into a residential lease agreement with the defendants, filed a complaint
for housing code enforcement, pursuant to the applicable statute (§ 47a-
14h), with the town in which the premises was located, alleging that
the defendants had violated the statute (§ 47a-7) when they failed to
repair and maintain certain conditions at the premises, including, inter
alia, the swimming pool, furnace, and chimneys. The trial court deter-
mined that only the plaintiffs’ alleged violations concerning the furnace
and chimneys arguably fell within the statutory criteria. During the
bench trial, W, a town building official, testified that he notified D, a
sanitarian for the local health district that enforces the health code, of
the complaint because the alleged issues were property maintenance
matters to be addressed by the local health district. D attested that after
reviewing the complaint and speaking to J on the phone, she concluded
that the alleged violations did not rise to the level of a health, fitness,
or habitability concern and further determined that the defendants could
not be cited for any code violations as the furnace reached a level of
sixty-five degrees, which was legally sufficient, especially in July, and
the housing code did not require chimneys or fireplaces to be provided
or maintained. In its memorandum of decision, the court determined,
inter alia, that based on the record and the evidence presented, the
plaintiffs failed to prove by a fair preponderance of the evidence that
the violations alleged in the complaint rose to the level of violations
materially affecting the health, safety, and habitability of the premises
and, therefore, rendered judgment in favor of the defendants. Thereafter,
the plaintiffs appealed to this court, arguing that their claims regarding
the swimming pool, furnace, and chimneys did not need to constitute
violations of the housing code or rise to a level affecting the health,
safety, and habitability of the premises to prevail on their complaint
pursuant to § 47a-14h alleging violations of § 47a-7. Held that the trial
court’s finding that the plaintiffs failed to establish that their allegations
constituted violations of the housing code or materially affected the
health, safety, and habitability of the premises as required under § 47a-
7 was not clearly erroneous: to trigger the sanctions available for a
violation of § 47a-7, the plaintiffs were required to show more than
dissatisfaction with the condition and operation of the pool, furnace,
and chimneys and, instead, were required to adduce evidence that estab-
lished a substantial violation or series of violations of housing and health
codes that created a material risk or hazard to the plaintiffs as occupants;
moreover, the evidence in the record demonstrated that the plaintiffs
failed to establish that any of their allegations constituted a violation
of § 47a-7, as the furnace reached a legally sufficient level of temperature,
the lack of repairs to the pool was not a health, safety, or habitability
issue, especially considering that the parties’ signed agreement provided
that the pool was strictly an amenity, of which use was not guaranteed,
and J testified that the plaintiffs did not suffer any injury or illness as
a result of the defendants’ alleged failure to clean the chimneys.
Argued December 2, 2021—officially released June 21, 2022 Procedural History