Court Opinion

ID: 9450045
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 16:33:23.980102+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:32:07.526671
License: Public Domain

WATERMAN, Circuit Judge
(concurring) :
I concur in the unfortunate result reached by the majority, unfortunate because, unless Connecticut passes special legislation, we have forever prevented the United States, a judgment creditor, from satisfying its judgment out of available funds in the hands of its judgment debtor, the Housing Authority of the City of Derby, and have created another government “give-away” program where it is apparent that none was originally intended. The note issued to the United States by the Housing Authority expressly stated that it was issued pur*963suant to the Constitution and statutes of Connecticut. I join my colleagues in reversing the trial court on the sole ground that issuance of the writ of mandamus would require an act to be done which would be contrary to' the Connecticut statutory scheme for the administration and operation of its local housing authorities, as set forth in General Statutes of Connecticut, §§ 8-45, 8-72, which scheme apparently prohibits using income realized from the operation of one housing project to pay debts incurred in the operation of another housing project. It is my belief that the Assistance Agreements which this authority entered into with the State of Connecticut do not bar issuance of the writ, either on the ground that the Assistance Agreements charged the funds now sought by the United States with an equitable lien, or on the proposition that in some way these agreements may be legitimately looked to as proper aids in determining the statutory scheme the Connecticut legislature devised for administering its housing programs.