OBRIEN-KELLEY, LTD.
v.
TOWN OF GOSHEN et al.
Argued
February 11, 2019
Appeal
from the Superior Court, Judicial District of Litchfield,
Bentivegna, J.
Page 642
James
Stedronsky, for the appellant (plaintiff).
Thomas
Plotkin, with whom, on the brief, was Joseph B. Burns,
Hartford, for the appellee (defendant Arthur R. Quinn III).
Alvord,
Sheldon and Moll, Js.
OPINION
SHELDON,
J.
[190
Conn.App. 421] In this action arising from an alias tax
warrant issued by the town of Goshen for delinquent municipal
real estate taxes, the plaintiff, OBrien-Kelley, Ltd.,
appeals from the summary judgment of the trial court rendered
in favor of the defendant Arthur R. Quinn III,[1] a state
marshal, which concluded that the [190 Conn.App. 422]
defendant was entitled, under General Statutes § 12-162 (c),
to be paid a 15 percent statutory fee for executing the
subject tax warrant. The plaintiff claims that the trial
court erred in holding that the defendant was entitled to be
paid the statutory fee because the defendant had not executed
on the tax warrant or collected the delinquent taxes, but
merely mailed notice of the tax warrant to the plaintiff,
prompting the plaintiff to pay the delinquent tax and
interest to the town directly before the warrant was served.
We disagree, and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the
trial court.
The
following undisputed facts are relevant to our resolution of
this appeal. The plaintiff is a Connecticut corporation
having offices at 39 West Street in Litchfield. It owns a
single-family lakefront house at 72 Sandy Beach Road in
Goshen, which it manages, by and through its president and
sole member, Edward James Murphy, Jr., for a private,
extended family.
In
February, 2016, the tax collector for the town of Goshen
determined that the plaintiff had failed to pay the January
1, 2016 installment of its 2014 property tax bill. Therefore,
on February 9, 2016, the tax collector issued a delinquent
notice, notifying the plaintiff that it owed the outstanding
tax, plus interest calculated through February 29, 2016. The
notice expressly stated that the plaintiff owed a total of $
3302.21, consisting of $ 3206.03 in back taxes and $ 96.18 in
interest.
In
March, 2016, the tax collector further determined that the
plaintiff still had not paid its January 1, 2016 installment
of its 2014 property tax bill. Consequently, on March 8,
2016, the tax collector issued to the plaintiff a notice of
intent to lien, in which she indicated that the plaintiff
owed $ 3206.03 in delinquent taxes, plus interest, calculated
though April 30, 2016, in the amount of $ 192.36, for a total
amount due of $ 3398.39. The [190 Conn.App. 423] notice of
intent to lien[2] indicated that payment in full of the
Page 643
delinquent tax bill was due by April 12, 2016, and that if
that payment was not timely submitted, the tax collector
could enforce collection of the plaintiffs delinquent
account, at the expense of the plaintiff, by any of several
means, including assigning the plaintiffs account to a state
marshal for the service of an alias tax warrant.
The
plaintiff once again failed to pay its delinquent tax bill by
the April 12, 2016 due date. Consequently, on April 26, 2016,
the tax collector issued a "Property Alias Warrant"
(alias tax warrant) to the defendant, commanding the
defendant to collect the plaintiffs property taxes in the
amount of $ 3476.48, consisting of $ 3206.03 in taxes, $
240.45 in interest calculated through May 30, 2016, a $ 24
lien fee and a $ 6 warrant fee, and the defendants
"lawful charges."
On May
1, 2016, the defendant mailed a letter to the plaintiff,
informing it that he was in receipt of an alias [190
Conn.App. 424] tax warrant authorizing him to collect the
plaintiffs delinquent real estate taxes for the town of
Goshen and enclosing a copy of the warrant. The letter
stated, inter alia: "This Alias Tax Warrant commands me
to make demand upon you for the sum of $ 3,997.95, payable
to: State Marshal Arthur Quinn, before making any
attachments. THIS PROPERTY WILL BE SUBJECT TO TAX AUCTION IF
DELINQUENCY REMAINS UNPAID AFTER MAY 30, 2016." The
letter further warned: "If no contact is made
immediately, we will proceed to attach any wages earned or
any existing bank accounts to include but not limited to the
seizure of any equipment, property, vehicles, or assets for
auction." The letter instructed that full payment of all
sums due, including the defendants statutory fee of $
521.47, be remitted to the defendant.
On May
24, 2016, the tax collector received payment from the
plaintiff in the amount of $ 3476.48. The tax collector
applied that payment, in accordance with General Statutes §
12-144b, as follows: $ 453.34 for the defendants statutory
fee of 15 percent of the tax, interest, fees and costs, which
totaled $ 3023.03; $ 240.45 for accrued interest; $ 24 for
the lien fee; $ 6 for the warrant fee; and $ 2752.58 toward
the plaintiffs outstanding delinquent tax bill.
After
the tax collector applied the plaintiffs payment to its
account, the 2014 tax bill still had an unpaid balance in the
amount of $ 453.45 due and owing, in addition to any
applicable interest, fees and costs. The plaintiff thereafter
submitted payment for that remaining balance.
On
July 26, 2016, the plaintiff mailed a letter to the
defendant, demanding that he return to it the sum of $ 453.45
that the town had paid to him as his fee. The defendant did
not respond to the plaintiffs demand.
Page 644
[190
Conn.App. 425] The plaintiff thereafter filed this action,
alleging that the defendant was not entitled to a 15 percent
statutory fee under § 12-162 because he never executed the
alias tax warrant. The plaintiff further alleged that,
because the defendant was not entitled to that fee under §
...