AGO 1990-039.

• Court: Connecticut

Connecticut Attorney General Opinions 1990. AGO 1990-039. 1990Opinion No. 1990-039Honorable Robert G. JaekleHouse Minority Leader280 Keating DriveStratford, Connecticut 06497 Dear Representative Jaekle: This will acknowledge receipt of your letter of July 5, 1990 wherein you request our opinion regarding 1990 Conn. Pub. Acts, 90-306. The first section of this Act concerns disclosures by real estate brokers and salesmen to prospective purchasers and sellers, while the balance thereof concerns the management of common interest property. Your letter concerns the latter, and asks the following questions: 1. "Does PA 90-306 (10) require that all existing contracts for the management of condominiums be nullified unless provisions are added which include among other things, a provision for a fidelity bond as set forth in subsection (12) of the act? 2. If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, does this act work to impair any existing contracts in violation of the contract clause of the United States Constitution, and if so, is this act then unenforceable in its entirety or just as to those sections which violate the provisions of the Constitution? 3. Is the act enforceable prior to the Real Estate Commission adopting regulations as set forth in subsection (13) of the act?" The answer to your first question is "no." Conn. Gen. Stat. e§55-3 provides: "(N)o provision of the general statutes, not previously contained in the statutes of the state, which imposes any new obligation on any person or corporation, shall be construed to have a retrospective effect." The provisions of the Act in question do impose new obligations on licensed real estate brokers and salesmen, as well as on persons who are "community association managers" as defined in section§2 of the Act. Also, Connecticut cases have generally held that if a new statute affects substantive rights it shall not be retroactively applied. "Legislation which limits or increases statutory liability has generally been held to be substantive in nature." Lavieri v. Ulysses, 149§Conn.§396, 402 (1962). The provisions of this act are certainly substantive. "Newly enacted statutes are generally given only prospective effect unless there is clear evidence that the legislature intended to give the statute retroactive effect." State v. Vilalastra, 207§Conn.§35, 40, 540§A.2d§42...