The mission of the Connecticut Judicial Branch is to serve the interests of justice and the public by resolving matters brought before it in a fair, timely, efficient and open manner.
Property Law

Property Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Zigadto, Janet

 http://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=348

AC39746 - Ledyard v. WMS Gaming, Inc. (Personal property taxes; "The motion before the court challenges our jurisdiction over the appeal of the defendant, WMS Gaming, Inc., from the decision of the trial court rendering summary judgment as to liability only in favor of the plaintiff, the town of Ledyard, with respect to certain attorney's fees incurred by the plaintiff. The plaintiff moves to dismiss the defendant's appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, claiming that the trial court's decision is not an appealable final judgment because the trial court has not determined the amount of the attorney's fees. We conclude that the trial court's decision rendering summary judgment as to liability only in favor of the plaintiff with regard to the attorney's fees at issue is not an appealable final judgment. Accordingly, we grant the plaintiff's motion to dismiss the defendant's appeal.

The record before the court reveals the following facts and procedural history. In 2008, the plaintiff commenced the underlying action to collect unpaid personal property taxes that it had imposed on slot machines that the defendant owned and leased to the Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Nation (Tribal Nation) for use in its gaming facilities.")


Property Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Zigadto, Janet

 http://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=334

AC38289 - McDonald v. McDonald (Partition of real property; "The plaintiff . . . appeals from the summary judgment rendered in favor of the defendants . . . On appeal, he claims that the trial court improperly concluded that his claim for partition of certain real property jointly owned by all of the parties was barred by res judicata because (1) the previous judgment that was relied upon by the trial court as having said preclusive effect was not a final judgment and (2) his right to partition is absolute. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Property Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Zigadto, Janet

 http://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=283

AC38080 - Geiger v. Carey (Trespass; injunction; quiet title; "The plaintiffs . . . brought this action against the defendant . . . their next door neighbor, seeking money damages, punitive damages, and an order requiring the defendant to remove a fence. The complaint sounded in three counts:(1) trespass; (2) violation of Connecticut's tree cutting statute, pursuant to General Statutes § 52-560; and (3) malicious erection of a structure, pursuant to General Statutes § 52-570. The defendant brought a counterclaim against the plaintiffs seeking injunctive relief, monetary damages, punitive damages, and an order of quiet title to the land under the fence and airspace above the fence. The counterclaim sounded in seven counts:(1) private nuisance; (2 through 4) trespass; (5) quiet title; (6) intentional infliction of emotional distress; and (7) negligent infliction of emotional distress. . .

We have examined the record on appeal and considered the briefs and the arguments of the parties, and conclude that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. Because the trial court thoroughly addressed the arguments raised in this appeal, we adopt its well reasoned decision as a proper statement of the facts and the applicable law on the issues.See Geiger v. Carey, __ Conn. App. __, __ A.3d __ (2015) (appendix). Any further discussion by this court would serve no useful purpose. See, e.g., Woodruff v. Hemingway, 297 Conn. 317, 321, 2 A.3d 857 (2010).

The judgment is affirmed.")


Property Law Supreme Court Opinions

   by Zigadto, Janet

 http://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=278

SC19554 - Chestnut Point Realty, LLC v. East Windsor (Taxation; appeal from assessment of real property taxes; "The statutory right to appeal from an assessment of real property by a municipal board of assessment appeals is conditioned on the property owner "mak[ing] application" to the Superior Court within two months of the date the board mails notice of its action. See General Statutes § 12-117a. The question presented by this case is whether, for purposes of this limitation period, such application is made upon the filing of the required appeal documents in the Superior Court, or rather, when those appeal documents have been served upon the taxing municipality. The plaintiff, Chestnut Point Realty, LLC, appeals from the judgment of the Appellate Court affirming the trial court's dismissal of its municipal tax appeal due to untimeliness. Chestnut Point Realty, LLC v. East Windsor, 158 Conn. App. 565, 575, 119 A.3d 1229 (2015). The plaintiff claims that, under the plain language of § 12-117a, its appeal was timely commenced upon the filing of its appeal documents in the Superior Court, even though the appeal was not served on the defendant, the town of East Windsor (town), until a date beyond the expiration of the two month appeal period. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the Appellate Court.")

SC19555 - Kettle Brook Realty, LLC v. East Windsor (Taxation; appeal from assessment of real property taxes; "This case raises the issue of whether a municipal tax appeal brought pursuant to General Statutes § 12-117a is commenced, for purposes of meeting the limitation period prescribed by that statute, by the filing of the tax appeal with the Superior Court or, rather, upon the service of the appeal on the municipal taxing authority. The plaintiff, Kettle Brook Realty, LLC, appeals from the judgment of the Appellate Court affirming the trial court's dismissal of its tax appeal due to untimeliness. Kettle Brook Realty, LLC v. East Windsor, 158 Conn. App. 576, 579, 119 A.3d 1276 (2015). The plaintiff claims that, under the plain language of § 12-117a, its appeal was timely commenced upon the filing of its appeal documents in the Superior Court, even though the appeal was not served on the defendant, the town of East Windsor (town), until a date beyond the expiration of the two month appeal period. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the Appellate Court.")



Property Law Supreme Court Opinion

   by Zigadto, Janet

 http://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=262

SC19668 - Lackman v. McAnulty (Declaratory judgment; quiet title; "In this case, we consider whether a grantor's failure to record a separate document limiting his powers ' "as trustee" ' in accordance with General Statutes § 47-20, when that grantor quitclaimed real property to himself as trustee, has the effect of nullifying the transfer of that property to the trust corpus, thereby allowing that grantor, as an individual, subsequently to devise that property through his will. The plaintiffs . . . appeal from the trial court's award of summary judgment in favor of the defendants, who are beneficiaries of a trust settled by the decedent . . . . On appeal, the plaintiffs claim that the trial court improperly determined that the phrase 'otherwise dispose of' within § 47-20 does not include a specific devise in a will. The plaintiffs argue, therefore, that the decedent's failure to record a separate document limiting his powers as trustee when he quitclaimed a certain parcel of real property to himself as trustee subsequently allowed the decedent to devise the property to the plaintiffs in his will. We disagree with the plaintiffs, and conclude that § 47-20 does not apply in this case because it protects only the interests of third parties who obtain property by means of a conveyance from a grantor who had received that property as trustee in the first instance. Because § 47-20 did not nullify the decedent's quitclaim deed to himself as trustee, the property was a trust asset, and the specific devise in the decedent's will adeemed. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Supreme Court Opinions

   by Roy, Christopher

 http://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=243

SC19558 - Dattco, Inc. v. Commissioner of Transportation
SC19558 - Collins Bus Service, Inc. v. Commissioner of Transportation
SC19558 - Nason Partners, LLC v. Commissioner of Transportation
SC19558 - New Britain Transportation Co. v. Commissioner of Transportation ("General Statutes § 13b-36 (a) permits the defendant, the Commissioner of Transportation (commissioner), to take by eminent domain ‘any land, buildings, equipment or facilities’ if the commissioner finds that their taking is ‘necessary for the operation or improvement of transportation services.’ In this appeal, we must determine whether the commissioner’s power to take ‘facilities’ includes the power to take a government issued certificate permitting a bus company the right to operate over a given route. We conclude that it does not.")


Property Law Supreme and Appellate Court Opinions

   by Zigadto, Janet

 http://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=242

SC19551 - Nutmeg Housing Development Corp. v. Colchester (Taxation; "In this appeal, we consider whether the trial court correctly determined that the plaintiff . . . failed to establish aggrievement in that it failed to prove that the defendant . . . had overvalued its property for tax purposes. After a bench trial, the court found that the plaintiff had failed to establish that it was aggrieved by the town's valuation because the court found that the plaintiff's expert did not present sufficient, credible evidence to establish that the town had overvalued the property. The trial court rendered judgment for the town, and the plaintiff appealed. We conclude that the trial court's determination of credibility is supported by the record, and, thus, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC37876 - Benjamin v. Norwalk (Adverse possession; "The plaintiffs . . . appeal from the judgment of the trial court denying their claim of adverse possession of 708 square feet of land adjacent to their home in Norwalk (contested area).On appeal, the plaintiffs claim that the court erred by (1) finding that The Shorefront Park Company dedicated all of the roads shown on a subdivision map for the use of the defendant city of Norwalk (city), (2) determining that it was their burden to rebut municipal acceptance of dedicated roadways by clear and convincing evidence, and (3) finding that dominion over the contested area was shared.We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")



Property Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Zigadto, Janet

 http://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=223

AC38047 - Village Apartments, LLC v. Ward (Quiet title action; "The plaintiff . . . appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the defendants . . . after a trial to the court, quieting title to a claimed easement in the form of a right-of-way (right-of-way) over the defendants' real property (property). The court determined that the Marketable Title Act (act), General Statutes § 47-33b et seq., extinguished the right-of-way because it was not preserved in the roots of title of the parties as required by the act and did not meet the apparent easement exceptions in General Statutes § 47-33h. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court erred in finding that the act extinguished its right-of-way (1) because it predated and was not properly set forth in either root of title; and (2) although there were visible, physical indicators of the existence of the right-of-way. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Collection of Delinquent Property Taxes - 2016 Edition

   by Roy, Christopher

 http://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=193

The 2016 edition of Collection of Delinquent Property Taxes in Connecticut has been posted to our research guides page.

Table of Contents

Section 1: Foreclosure of Tax Liens
Section 2: Summary Foreclosure of Tax Liens
Section 3: Collection Actions
Section 4: Tax Warrants
Section 5: Alias Tax Warrants
Section 6: Motor Vehicle Property Taxes


Appellate Court Opinion

   by Mazur, Catherine

 http://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=156

AC37811 - Vaccaro v. Shell Beach Condominium, Inc. ("The plaintiff, Enrico Vaccaro, appeals from the summary judgment rendered by the trial court in favor of the defendants, Shell Beach Condominium, Inc. (association), and certain individual members of its board of directors, Andrew Hames, Frank Meolli, Michael Gagliardi, Michelle Augliera, and Raymond Vermette (individually named defendants), on the basis that all of the plaintiff's claims arising from the deprivation of the use of a particular garage were time barred. The plaintiff argues that the court erred in rendering summary judgment in favor of the defendants, because, inter alia: (1) the trial court applied the wrong statute of limitations to count one of his complaint, which sought to enforce the condominium instruments; and (2) genuine issues of material fact exist as to whether the applicable statutes of limitations were tolled by virtue of the continuing course of conduct doctrine. We affirm the judgment of the court.")


Property Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Zigadto, Janet

 http://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=135

AC38011 - Cornelius v. Arnold ("The self-represented plaintiff, Frederick Cornelius, appeals from the summary judgment rendered in favor of the defendant, Linda Arnold, the tax assessor of the town of Farmington. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the trial court improperly concluded that (1) his action for relief from wrongful assessment was untimely because he commenced the action beyond the one year time limitation set forth in General Statutes § 12-119, and (2) he failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact as to whether a continuing course of conduct tolled that time limitation.We disagree with both claims and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")



Contract Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Roy, Christopher

 http://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=92

AC37988 - Solairaj v. Mannarino Builders, Inc.("The plaintiffs, Manivannan Solairaj and Malini Manivannan, appeal from the judgment rendered after a trial to the court in favor of the defendant, Mannarino Builders, Inc. On appeal, the plaintiffs claim that the court’s findings underlying its conclusions that (1) the plaintiffs breached the purchase agreement and (2) the defendant did not breach the agreement were clearly erroneous. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")


Declaratory Judgment Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Roy, Christopher

 http://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=82

AC37588 - Prime Locations of CT, LLC v. Rocky Hill Development, LLC ("The defendants MPM Enterprises, LLC (MPM), and Luke DiMaria appeal from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the plaintiffs, Prime Locations of CT, LLC (Prime Locations), Hasson Holdings, LLC (Hasson), SMS Realty, LLC (SMS), and C&G Holdings, LLC (C&G). On appeal, the defendants argue that the court improperly (1) concluded that the plaintiffs had standing and (2) decided the case on a basis that was not pleaded, briefed or argued during the proceedings in the trial court. We agree with the defendants' second claim, and reverse the judgment of the trial court.")


Property Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Roy, Christopher

 http://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=35

AC37210 - Cornelius v. Rosario (Action to quiet title; tax sale of property; motion for attorney's fees and costs; "On appeal, the plaintiff argues that (1) General Statutes § 12-140 allows for costs only and not attorney’s fees, (2) he is not the ‘delinquent taxpayer’ under § 12-140, (3) recovery of attorney’s fees pursuant to § 12-140 is preempted by 42 U.S.C. § 1988, and (4) the defendant’s motion for attorney’s fees was untimely. The defendant has filed a cross appeal, challenging the denial of a portion of the requested attorney’s fees and costs. We affirm in part and reverse in part the judgment of the trial court.")



1