Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 47-249 (2026)

Upkeep of common interest community. Liability for expenses

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Except to the extent provided by the declaration, subsection (b) of this section or subsection (h) of section 47-255, the association is responsible for maintenance, repair and replacement of the common elements, and each unit owner is responsible for maintenance, repair and replacement of his unit. Each unit owner shall afford to the association and the other unit owners, and to their agents or employees, access through his unit reasonably necessary for those purposes. If damage is inflicted on the common elements or on any unit through which access is taken, the unit owner responsible for the damage, or the association if it is responsible, is liable for the prompt repair thereof.

(b) In addition to the liability that a declarant as a unit owner has under this chapter, the declarant alone is liable for all expenses in connection with real property subject to development rights. No other unit owner and no other portion of the common interest community is subject to a claim for payment of those expenses. Unless the declaration provides otherwise, any income or proceeds from real property subject to development rights inures to the declarant.

(c) In a planned community, if all development rights have expired with respect to any real property, the declarant remains liable for all expenses of that real property unless, on expiration, the declaration provides that the real property becomes common elements or units.

(P.A. 83-474, S. 50, 96.)

Cited. 207 C. 441; 208 C. 318.

Cited. 38 CA 420.

(Return to Chapter
Table of Contents)

(Return to
List of Chapters)

(Return to
List of Titles)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 7 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1988–2024 · leading case: Sevigny v. Dibble Hollow Condo. Ass'n, 819 A.2d 844 (Conn. App. Ct. 2003).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Sevigny v. Dibble Hollow Condo. Ass'n, 819 A.2d 844 (Conn. App. Ct. 2003). · cites it 2× “General Statutes § 47-249 provides in relevant part: “(a) Except to the extent provided by the declaration, subsection (b) of this section or subsection (h) of section 47-255, the association is responsible for maintenance, repair and replacement of the common elements .”

Nicotra Wieler Inv. Mgmt., Inc. v. Grower, 541 A.2d 1226 (Conn. 1988). · cites it 2× “General Statutes § 47-249. A “boundary” created in the declaration may, or may not, correspond to the physical dimensions of a dwelling unit.”

Canner v. Governors Ridge Assn., Inc. (Conn. 2024). · cites it 9× “First, if General Statutes § 47-249 (a) and § 5.2 of the bylaws already impose an absolute duty to maintain all common elements, the portions of General Statutes § 47-255 (h) and § 23.”

Pasco Common Condo. Assn., Inc. v. Benson (Conn. App. Ct. 2019). · cites it 3× “Furthermore, the mandate as to which party is responsible for repair and maintenance is outlined by General Statutes § 47-249 (a), which provides in rele- vant part: ‘‘Except to the extent provided by the declara- tion .”

Canner v. Governor's Ridge Assn., Inc. (Conn. App. Ct. 2022). · cites it 3× “General Stat- utes § 47-249 creates a statutory duty on an association to maintain, repair, and replace the common elements, ‘‘[e]xcept to the extent provided by the declaration, subsection (b) of this section or subsection (h) of sec- tion 47-255 .”

Jamalipour v. Fairway's Edge Condo. Ass'n, Inc. (Conn. App. Ct. 2019). · cites it 2× “5 Essentially, they argue that it was improper for the court to award the plaintiff economic damages to replace his deck because, under the association’s bylaws, the deck is a limited common element of the association and, pursuant to General Statutes § 47-249, the association…”

Welch v. Stonybrook Gardens Coop., Inc. (Conn. App. Ct. 2015). · cites it 2× “’’ 8 The defendant raises additional grounds supporting its claim that the court erred in concluding that it had breached the 1965 occupancy agreement; the defendant also abandoned its plain error argument under General Statutes § 47-249 at oral argument before this court.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.