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).