LLC v. Town of Wilton

         Argued October 15, 2018

         Appeal from Superior Court, Judicial District of New Britain, Arnold W. Aronson, Judge Trial Referee, rendered judgment in favor of the town. Property owners appealed.

Page 654

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 655

          Matthew T. Wax-Krell, with whom were Marci Silverman and, on the brief, Denise P. Lucchio, Hartford, for the appellants (plaintiffs).

         Barbara M. Schellenberg, Orange, with whom were Jonathan S. Bowman, Bridgeport, and, on the brief, Joseph D. Szerejko, Hartford, for the appellees (defendants).

         DiPentima, C.J., and Moll and Bishop, Js.

          OPINION

         MOLL, J.

         [191 Conn.App. 714] The principal issue in this real estate joint tax appeal is whether the trial court properly rendered judgments in favor of the defendant, the town of Wilton, despite having concluded that the defendant’s tax assessor (assessor) violated General Statutes § 12-55 (b) when he added late filing penalties pursuant to General Statutes § 12-63c (d)^[1] against the plaintiff property [191 Conn.App. 715] owners^[2] three months after taking and subscribing to the oath on the 2014 grand list. The plaintiffs appeal from the judgments of the trial court rendered in favor of the defendant. In their joint appeal, the plaintiffs claim that the trial court erred by rendering judgments in favor of the defendant despite having properly concluded that the assessor acted without statutory authority when he added the late filing penalties to the 2014 grand list after taking and subscribing to the

Page 656

oath. We agree. Accordingly, we reverse the judgments of the trial court.

         The record and the parties’ stipulations of fact^[3] reflect the following facts and procedural background. On or [191 Conn.App. 716] before April 15, 2014, pursuant to § 12-63c (a), the assessor requested from the plaintiffs annual income and expense reports for the year 2013 for their respective subject properties and provided them with the requisite forms. At all times from April 15, 2014 through October 26, 2016,^[4] including October 1, 2014, the date of the grand list at issue, the plaintiffs owned their respective subject properties. Pursuant to § 12-63c (a), the plaintiffs were required to submit their 2013 income and expense reports to the assessor on or before June 1, 2014. On June 2, 2014, the plaintiffs sent, by Federal Express overnight mail, their 2013 income and expense reports, along with a cover letter dated May 30, 2014, to the assessor, who received them on June 3, 2014.

         On or before January 31, 2015, the assessor took the oath on the 2014 grand list,^[5] at which time he (1) knew that he had received the plaintiffs’ income and expense reports after the June 1, 2014 deadline, and (2) did not add any late filing penalties to the 2014 grand list with respect to the subject properties. The assessor’s practice has been to assess, pursuant to General Statutes § 12-60,^[6] any late filing penalties under § 12-63c (d) [191 Conn.App. 717] retroactively, after signing the grand list for a given year.^[7]

         On April 29, 2015, the assessor issued certificates of change for the subject properties in connection with the 2014 grand list and sent them, respectively, to the plaintiffs’ last known addresses. The certificates of change each contain the following prefatory language: "By authority of [§ ] 12-60 of the Connecticut General Statutes,

Page 657

the Assessor hereby adjusts the assessment list of 2014." Each certificate of change identifies, among other things, the "original" assessment amount, the "adjustment" amount reflecting the late filing penalty (i.e., approximately 10 percent of the original assessment),^[8] and the "current" assessment amount (i.e., the original assessment amount plus the adjustment amount). The certificates of change reflect no exemptions.

         Pursuant to General Statutes § 12-119, to the extent that it was necessary to do so, the plaintiffs timely filed respective appeals from the assessor’s actions to the Superior Court.^[9] See Wilton River Park 1688, LLC v. [191 Conn.App. 718] Wilton, Superior Court, judicial district of New Britain, Docket No. CV-15-6030507-S; Wilton Campus 1691, LLC v. Wilton, Superior Court, judicial district of New Britain, Docket No. CV-15-6030508-S; Wilton River Park North, LLC v. Wilton, Superior Court, judicial district of New Britain, Docket No. CV-15-6030509-S. Pursuant to General Statutes § 12-111,^[10] the plaintiffs also timely [191 Conn.App. 719] filed

Page 658

appeals to the Wilton Board of Assessment Appeals (board), which, subsequent to a hearing on April 5, 2016, denied their appeals, making no changes to the certificates of change. Pursuant to General Statutes § 12-117a,^[11] the plaintiffs filed timely appeals from the [191 ...