Source: https://connecticut.lexroll.com/257-blake-llc-v-town-of-seymour-no-cv08-4031348-s-aug-4-2009/
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 02:37:26+00:00

Document:
257 BLAKE, LLC v. TOWN OF SEYMOUR ET AL.
DAVID W. SKOLNICK, Judge Trial Referee.
The plaintiff, 257 Blake, LLC, appeals the decision of the defendant, Joseph Kusiak, the tax assessor for the town of Seymour (the assessor), to re-assess certain parcels of its land, located on Warren Drive, as “individual subdivision lots” for tax purposes. The town of Seymour (Seymour) is additionally named as a defendant. In re-assessing the plaintiff’s properties for the October 1, 2007 grand list, the assessor acted pursuant to § 12-55 of the General Statutes. The plaintiff appeals pursuant to § 12-119 of the General Statutes.
The plaintiff was notified of the assessor’s decision by written notice dated March 6, 2008. Within two months of receiving said notice, the plaintiff served the defendants by having the state marshal deliver the appeal papers to the assessor and the assistant town clerk in Seymour. The plaintiff’s application was filed with the clerk of the Superior Court on May 19, 2008. The defendants filed an answer on June 10, 2009. The parties have additionally filed briefs, as well as a joint stipulation of facts.
The facts, as stipulated to by the parties, are as follows. At all relevant times, the plaintiff owned the parcels of land in Seymour known as 27, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 35, 37, 38, 39, 40, and 41 Warren Drive (the property). On October 14, 2004, Seymour granted the plaintiff subdivision approval for the property. This approval, however, was appealed and did not become effective until July 26, 2007. Shortly thereafter, Seymour executed the necessary subdivision map. Yet, despite the expiration of the subdivision appeals and the execution of the subdivision map, Seymour did not return the subdivision map to the plaintiff for recording until February 27, 2008. Between July 26, 2007 and February 27, 2008, the plaintiff requested two extensions of time so that the subdivision approval would not expire due to the failure of Seymour to return the subdivision map to the plaintiff for recording. Upon the eventual receipt of the subdivision map, the plaintiff promptly filed it.
In a correspondence dated March 6, 2008, Seymour informed the plaintiff that it had reassessed the property as “individual subdivision lots” on its October 1, 2007 grand list. This determination subjected the plaintiff to a tax liability of seventy percent of the property’s true and actual valuation as of that date. The plaintiff appeals this determination.
“In contrast to § 12-117a, which allows a taxpayer to challenge the assessor’s valuation of his property, § 12-119 allows a taxpayer to bring a claim that the tax was imposed by a town that had no authority to tax the subject property, or that the assessment was manifestly excessive and could not have been arrived at except by disregarding the provisions of the statutes for determining the valuation of [the real] property . . . [A] claim that an assessment is excessive is not enough to support an action under this statute. Instead, § 12-119 requires an allegation that something more than mere valuation is at issue.” (Emphasis in original; CT Page 13342 internal quotation marks omitted.) Pauker v. Roig, 232 Conn. 335, 339-41, 654 A.2d 1233 (1995); accord Interlude, Inc. v. Skurat, 253 Conn. 531, 538, 754 A.2d 153 (2000); Carol Management Corp. v. Board of Tax Review, 228 Conn. 23, 30-31, 633 A.2d 1368 (1993).
“Claims under § 12-119 must fall into one of . . . two categories . . . The first category in the statute embraces situations where a tax has been laid on property not taxable in the municipality where it is situated . . . This category includes claims alleging that the municipality has exceeded the scope of its taxing power. Cases that fit in this category include Fenwick v. Old Saybrook, 133 Conn. 22, 24, 47 A.2d 849 (1946) (municipality cannot tax a public park established by a borough of the municipality), and First National Bank Trust Co. v. West Haven, 135 Conn. 191, 194, 62 A.2d 671 (1948) (municipality has no authority to tax the property of a national bank). See also Hartford Electric Light Co. v. Wethersfield, 165 Conn. 211, 332 A.2d 83 (1973) (utility right-of-way generally not taxable separate from freehold to which attached) . . .
because denial of tax exemption is not an illegal assessment).
In its application dated April 29, 2008, the plaintiff contends that the assessor incorrectly re-assessed the property on October 1, 2007 when he classified the property as individual subdivision lots. “Claims that an assessor has misclassified property and, consequently, overvalued it, comprise a category of appeals frequently pursued under the aegis of §12-119 . . . In such cases, the determinative issue typically is whether, as a matter of law, the property at issue properly was subject to taxation as the type of property falling within the classification applied by the assessor . . . If the plaintiff can show that it was not, it necessarily follows that the resulting assessment was manifestly excessive.” (Citations omitted.) Griswold Airport, Inc. v. Madison, 289 Conn. 723, 740-41, 961 A.2d 338 (2008). The plaintiff’s application, therefore, appears to be properly made under General Statutes § 12-119, and accordingly, the court must consider the substantive arguments presented by the parties.
CT Page 13344 (1994)], in which [the Supreme Court] . . . held that, as a general rule, subdivision approval, rather than recording of a subdivision map, furnishes an appropriate occasion for the revaluation and reassessment of real property. In Fyber Properties, [the Supreme Court] relied in [its] analysis of the applicable real property statutes to conclude that [t]he legislature has . . . indicated that, in the subdivision of property, the focal point is the date of approval . . . [The Supreme Court] declined to decide, however, the date upon which a property becomes taxable as a subdivision if the approval has been appealed, or conditions imposed upon an approval have not been fully satisfied before the assessment date.” (Citations omitted; emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted.)Pauker v. Roig, supra, 232 Conn. 344.
The plaintiff’s brief, however, fails to consider the subsequent law established by Pauker v. Roig, supra, 232 Conn. 335. In Pauker, the Supreme Court once again addressed the effect of such approval conditions and “discern[ed] a bright-line rule underlying our taxing and real property statutes with regard to subdivision approvals. Absent an appeal challenging its validity, the approval of a subdivision authorizes a tax assessor to tax the property as subdivided lots rather than as the undifferentiated parcel or parcels that preceded the approval. The authority to tax subdivided lots in such a manner means that taxpayers have no basis for challenging such a revaluation under § 12-119. To the extent that conditional approvals deprive taxpayers of immediate economic returns from their investment, such conditional approvals raise issues only of valuation, which properly may be addressed only by appeals under § 12-117a.” (Emphasis added.) Id., 345. Although the plaintiff may attempt to distinguish the bond condition in this case from the conditions imposed in Pauker, the court believes that it would be a disservice to the “bright-line rule” clearly established in that case to find that such highly technical distinctions effectuate a different result. Id., 337 345. Furthermore, unlike an actual misclassification, such as the one in Griswold Airport, Inc., the essence of this claim is the mere timing of a condition. Neither party contends that the property is presently anything other than “individual subdivision lots.” Thus, this case falls under the clear purview of bot Pauker and Fyber Properties.
An appeal pursuant to § 12-119, therefore, although generally proper in cases of misclassification, is improper in this case. Rather, after considering the Supreme Court’s holding in Pauker, the assessor’s inclusion of the property on the October 1, 2007 grand list as “individual subdivision lots” was proper and any further issues regarding the bond condition’s effect on the property’s economic value on that date must be resolved by a valuation appeal under § 12-117a. CT Page 13345 Accordingly, the plaintiff’s application pursuant to General Statutes §12-119 is denied.
appeal. The assessor did not attempt to include the property on the grand list as a subdivision until after the appeal challenging approval had reached its conclusion. The potential issues alluded to by the Supreme Court in Pauker and Fyber Properties exist only if the assessor had hypothetically attempted to include a property on the grand list as a subdivision after its approval, but before the completion of the appeal challenging said approval. During the approval appeal process, it would prove to be difficult to ascertain whether an approval was indeed effective or not because the result of the approval appeal could render the initial approval invalid. Such is not the case under these facts.

References: v. 
 § 12
 § 12
 § 12
 § 12
 § 12
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 12
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 §12
 v. 
 § 12
 v. 
 v. 
 § 12
 § 12
 § 12
 § 12
 §12