The 2020 edition of our research guide on the Collection of Delinquent Property Taxes in Connecticut has been posted to our research guides web page.

• Posted in:
• FYI,
• Legal Research,
• Property Law,
• Self-Help

AC42221 - Cheswold (TL), LLC, BMO Harris Bank, N.A. v. Kwong ("The self-represented defendant, Matthew J. Kwong, appeals from the trial court's judgment of foreclosure by sale of his property located at 9 Bradley Lane in the village of Sandy Hook in Newtown (property).He claims that the court erred in denying his motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the ground that the substituted plaintiff, ATCF REO Holdings, LLC (ATCF), lacked standing to foreclose the property because the assignment of certain municipal tax liens to ATCF was not recorded on the Newtown land records. Accordingly, the principal issue in this appeal is whether the assignment of a municipal tax lien is required to be recorded on the land records in order for the assignee to have standing to foreclose the property, which is an issue of first impression for this court. For the following reasons, we conclude that such recording is not required and affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Foreclosure Law,
• Property Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC42610 - American Tax Funding, LLC v. First Eagle Corp. (Municipal tax collection; special defenses; "In this collection action, the plaintiff, American Tax Funding, LLC, appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the defendant First Eagle Corporation on two of its special defenses. The court concluded that the plaintiff, the assignee of municipal tax liens, was barred from recovery. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court (1) improperly determined that its claims were extinguished pursuant to General Statutes § 12-195, and (2) erred when concluding that the defendant's debt to the plaintiff had been satisfied. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC40608 - Morton v. Syriac (Temporary and permanent injunction; easement; "The defendant, Neil Syriac, appeals from the judgment of the trial court granting a permanent injunction enjoining him from obstructing the use of a shared driveway that runs across the defendant's property by the plaintiff, Michele Morton, who is his former wife. The defendant asserts that the trial court erred by (1) issuing a permanent injunction when the plaintiff neither alleged nor proved that she would suffer irreparable harm and that she lacked an adequate remedy at law, (2) modifying the separation agreement previously stipulated to by the parties and incorporated into an earlier judgment of dissolution, (3) allowing the plaintiff to introduce evidence that contradicted judicial admissions contained in her complaint, and (4) denying his motion to disqualify the trial judge without a hearing. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Property Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC41966 - Peterson v. Torrington (Declaratory judgment; summary judgment; tax sale; "This appeal arises out of a system to collect and pay property taxes unique to the defendant city of Torrington (city). See 21 Spec. Acts 7, No. 4 (1931). Pursuant to the system, the defendant tax collector, Robert Crovo (tax collector), conducted a tax sale in which he sold the real property of the plaintiff, Alyssa Peterson, to collect unpaid property taxes. In response, Peterson commenced an action against the city, the tax collector, and the purchasers of the property at the sale, the defendants William Gilson and Sharon Gilson (purchasers). Subsequently, Homeowners Finance Company (lender), the first mortgage holder on the plaintiff's property, intervened as a defendant, in an attempt to void the sale of the property. All six parties filed motions for summary judgment. Ultimately, the trial court, after concluding that there was no genuine issue as to any material fact, granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants and denied summary judgment as to Peterson and the lender. Peterson and the lender filed separate appeals. We dismiss the lender's appeal." "[1]Peterson's appeal was dismissed after she failed to timely file a brief and appendix. She, therefore, is not a party to this appeal.")

AC42256 - Dickau v. Mingrone (Property; breach of contract; "The plaintiff, Jason Dickau, appeals from the trial court's judgment in favor of the defendant, Lawrence Mingrone, on the plaintiff's complaint, which alleged breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation, intentional misrepresentation, and innocent misrepresentation, relating to the defendant's sale of real property to the plaintiff. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court's findings that (1) the Office of Building Inspection and Enforcement for the City of New Haven (building department) had not made a determination that the number of legal units in the property was less than three, and (2) the plaintiff had failed to establish the existence of damages as to each of his claims were clearly erroneous. We disagree with the plaintiff and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC42000 - Jepsen v. Camassar (Declaratory judgment; "The plaintiffs Anders B. Jepsen and Beth Jepsen appeal from the denial of their postjudgment motions for equitable relief, for attorney's fees and costs, and to open the judgment rendered by the trial court following a remand by this court. See Jepsen v. Camassar, 181 Conn. App. 492, 187 A.3d 486 (Jepsen I), cert. denied, 329 Conn. 909, 186 A.3d 12 (2018). On appeal, the plaintiffs claim that (1) the trial court failed to provide them with relief that was encompassed within the mandate of Jepsen I when it denied their claims to equitable relief and attorney's fees and costs, (2) even assuming that the mandate did not encompass the relief sought by the plaintiffs, the trial court improperly declined to open the judgment to provide the plaintiffs with their desired relief, and (3) the trial court violated the plaintiffs' constitutional rights by failing to provide them with their desired relief on remand. We agree in part with the plaintiffs' claim to attorney's fees and costs, reverse the judgment of the trial court limited to that issue and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.")

AC41688 - Carabetta Organization, Ltd. v. Meriden ("In this case arising from a dispute that originated more than twenty years ago, the plaintiffs, The Carabetta Organization, Ltd., Summitwood Development, LLC (Summitwood), and Nipmuc Properties, LLC (Nipmuc), appeal from the summary judgment rendered by the trial court in favor of the defendants, the city of Meriden, Dominick Caruso, Tilcon, Inc., and Tilcon Connecticut, Inc. (Tilcon). The plaintiffs claim that the court erred in concluding that their claims were barred by the doctrine of res judicata. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Contract Law,
• Declaratory Judgment Law,
• Property Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC42021 - Kohl's Dept. Stores, Inc. v. Rocky Hill (Tax appeal; "In this tax appeal, we are required to determine whether a municipal tax assessor is permitted to utilize the depreciation schedule set forth in General Statutes § 12-63 (b) (6) to assess the personal property of a taxpayer when the municipality has not adopted by ordinance the statutory depreciation schedule as provided in § 12-63 (b) (2). We answer that question in the affirmative. The defendant, the town of Rocky Hill (town), appeals from the judgment of the trial court sustaining the appeal of the plaintiff, Kohl's Department Stores, Inc., from the town's assessment of personal property located at 1899 Silas Deane Highway, Rocky Hill (store). On appeal, the town claims that the court erred in determining that the town's tax assessor (assessor) could not utilize the depreciation schedule set forth in § 12-63 (b) (6) because the town had not adopted the statutory schedule by ordinance, which likely influenced the court's conclusion that the town had overassessed the plaintiff's personal property. We agree and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Property Law,
• Recent Opinions