7 GERMANTOWN ROAD, LLC, et al. v. CITY OF DANBURY, SC 21024

Judicial District of Danbury

 

      Tax Appeals; General Statutes § 12-117a (a) (2); Whether Failure to Timely File Real Estate Appraisal Deprived Trial Court of Jurisdiction over Tax Appeal. The six plaintiffs, who each own property in the defendant city of Danbury, filed separate applications in the Superior Court challenging the tax assessment of their respective properties, which were all valued at more than one million dollars.  Pursuant to General Statutes § 12-117a (a) (2), "if the assessed value of the real property . . . is one million dollars or more and the application concerns the valuation of such real property, the applicant shall file with the court, not later than one hundred twenty days after making such application, an appraisal of the real property . . . . If such appraisal is not timely filed, the court may dismiss the application."  The plaintiffs were granted an extension of the 120 day deadline but failed to timely file the appraisals with the court, although the plaintiffs did serve them on the defendant.  Consequently, the defendant moved to dismiss the applications, claiming that the plaintiffs lacked standing under § 12-117a (a) (2) due to the untimely filed appraisals.  On March 12, 2024, the trial court, Shaban, J., granted the motions in five of the six cases, ruling that, because the plaintiffs had failed to file the appraisals by the extended deadline, the court was "without jurisdiction to hear the appeal[s]."  The plaintiffs subsequently moved to open the judgments on the ground that Judge Shaban's rulings conflicted with his decisions in two prior tax appeals involving the defendant.  In those cases, Judge Shaban denied motions to dismiss finding that, although the appraisals were untimely, there was no prejudice to the defendant because it had received the appraisals prior to argument on the motions to dismiss and had been fully informed of the claimed value of the properties well in advance of any trial.  On June 12, 2024, upon reconsideration, Judge Shaban determined that the inconsistent decisions constituted a "good and compelling reason to warrant reopening the judgments so that the matters may be heard on the merits."  The court opened the judgments and, on that same day, denied the motion to dismiss the sixth tax appeal, finding that, although the appraisal was not timely filed, there was no prejudice to the defendant because it had received the appraisal prior to argument on the motion to dismiss and had been fully informed of the claimed value of the properties well in advance of any trial.  After the Chief Justice granted the defendant certification to bring public interest appeals pursuant to General Statutes § 52-265a, the defendant appealed the decisions in all six tax appeals, arguing that it has "the right to the dismissal of [the] tax appeals" because the plaintiffs lack standing, as they failed to timely file the appraisals, which deprived the trial court of jurisdiction under § 12-117a (a) (2).