November 27, 2024
By: Nicholas W. Vitti Jr. and Jaimie L. Russell
In a follow-up to last month’s alert, "Connecticut Supreme Court to Decide Case on Property Tax Appeals and the Plaintiff’s Appraisal Deadline under Connecticut Statute: Implications for Owners of Properties Assessed at over $1 Million," the Court recently heard oral arguments from both the City of Danbury and commercial property owners. The case reexamines compliance issues under Connecticut General Statutes § 12-117a(a)(2), which require property owners appealing tax assessments on properties valued over $1 million to file an appraisal with the court within 120 days. As previously discussed, this interpretation could shape tax appeals for properties assessed at over $1 million statewide.
Background on § 12-117a(a)(2): Statutory Compliance and Standing in Connecticut Tax Appeals
The statute, § 12-117a(a)(2), revised in 2022, requires that property owners appealing the assessment of properties valued at over $1 million submit an appraisal to court within 120 days of commencement of the case (with extensions available only upon request and demonstrating good cause). The statute was intended to streamline tax appeals and mitigate unsubstantiated claims by requiring early submission of appraisals. The City of Danbury argues that the statute’s requirement is jurisdictional—mandatory, non-negotiable and grounds for dismissal if missed. The plaintiffs counter, suggesting that the statute’s “may dismiss” language indicates judicial discretion, allowing courts to retain jurisdiction despite a missed deadline.
The central argument remains whether the appraisal requirement is jurisdictional—demanding strict compliance—or whether it allows for judicial discretion, permitting a court to retain jurisdiction even when filing deadlines are missed. The statute’s use of “may” in describing the court’s authority to dismiss appeals was highlighted in our earlier article as a possible basis for judicial flexibility, which was reiterated within the arguments on behalf of the property owners. However, the City argued that strict compliance is essential to establishing statutory standing, contending that the right to appeal is governed by legislative criteria that must be met to provide jurisdiction.
Danbury’s Argument: Strict Compliance
The City of Danbury argued that failure to comply with the appraisal filing deadline unequivocally deprives the trial court of statutory standing, meaning the court lacks the jurisdiction to proceed with an appeal after the deadline is missed. The City relied on Chestnut Point Realty v. East Windsor, where the court ruled similarly on strict procedural compliance within tax statutes, asserting that failure to meet procedural prerequisites should result in mandatory dismissal. It explained that the appraisal requirement functions to prevent “mass filings” aimed at forcing settlements without merit, a concern supported by former Hartford Mayor Luke Bronin in the 2022 statute’s legislative discussions. Danbury argues this approach would maintain a strict hurdle to administrative appeals, discouraging appeals filed only to leverage settlements and ensuring public trust in the efficacy of municipal assessments.
The City also faced pointed questions from the Justices about why the statute employs the term “may” in describing the court's power to dismiss. The Justices raised analogies to disciplinary practices in civil procedure, suggesting that the statute’s language could allow courts the discretion to choose sanctions other than dismissal. Justices focused on whether “may” implies an optional path for trial courts, pushing the City to explain how a statute governing statutory standing could simultaneously include discretionary dismissal. Danbury responded by emphasizing the statute's purpose: to suspend action until compliance, maintaining that allowing any discretionary flexibility would violate the statute’s strict intent.
Plaintiffs’ Argument: Judicial Discretion
Counsel for the plaintiffs, framed the statute’s language as granting the trial court leeway to consider minor deviations without dismissing cases outright. The plaintiffs highlighted the “may dismiss” clause, contending that the legislature intended flexibility, thus allowing trial courts to prioritize case merits over procedural formalities, particularly where no prejudice resulted from a delayed filing. It was suggested that minor procedural delays, such as a few days' delay in filing, should not cancel out the substantive right to appeal, especially since the City of Danbury had received the appraisal only a few days after the missed deadline. The purpose of the statute is to allow the court flexibility in managing cases, preventing it from becoming a tool to “kick cases out on a technicality” rather than addressing the substantive issues of each appeal.
The plaintiffs sought to distinguish this case from jurisdictional compliance cases, emphasizing that once an appeal is properly filed, the court retains jurisdiction. Conflicts were noted between the statute and Connecticut’s practice book rules on expert disclosures, highlighting procedural gaps that could have contributed to the delayed appraisal filing. The justices further questioned the parallels with the medical malpractice statute's requirement for filing opinion letters from experts, which the courts previously interpreted as jurisdictional, yet also acknowledged recent trends towards judicial leniency in procedural dismissals.
Judicial Concerns and the Separation of Powers
A notable concern voiced by the Justices was whether enforcing a mandatory dismissal for failure to meet the appraisal filing deadline intrudes on judicial discretion. They queried whether the statute’s appraisal filing requirement was comparable to civil procedure rules, such as discovery disclosures, where judges often exercise discretion in handling noncompliance.
The Court’s Potential Impact: Consequences of Ruling for Either Party
The Court’s decision will clarify the appraisal filing deadline's nature within Connecticut's property tax appeals for high-value properties. As discussed in last month’s alert, this decision will either reinforce mandatory compliance, creating a precedent that failure to meet procedural standards results in automatic dismissal, or confirm a flexible interpretation, granting courts discretion to weigh procedural missteps against substantive fairness.
If the Court Rules for Danbury: This outcome could limit the number of appeals, as property owners become wary of stringent deadlines, likely decreasing the volume of appeals and freeing up municipal resources.
If the Court Rules for the Property Owners: It would enable trial courts to exercise flexibility in dismissing appeals, potentially increasing the volume of appeals municipalities may face, which could strain resources but would provide greater access to substantive hearings for property owners.
Conclusion and Implications for Property Owners
This case presents a pivotal moment for Connecticut’s property tax appeals. (As noted in the previous article, this case does not affect tax appeals for properties assessed at under $1 million, whose appeal processes remain unchanged). The Court’s ruling will clarify whether the appraisal filing requirement in §12-117a(a)(2) is a strict jurisdictional mandate or a flexible procedural guideline. If the Connecticut Supreme Court affirms strict compliance as essential for jurisdictional standing, property owners must ensure timely appraisals are filed with the court. Alternatively, if discretion is upheld, it signals a shift towards practical adjudication, favoring resolution on case merits rather than procedural technicalities.
This decision will clarify the responsibilities of property owners and shape future strategies in tax appeal cases. Property owners considering appeals should consult legal counsel to understand these procedural nuances and comply with evolving requirements.
For assistance navigating the tax appeal process or guidance on compliance with Connecticut’s statutory requirements, contact Nicholas W. Vitti Jr. at nvitti@murthalaw.com or 203.653.5435, and Jaimie L. Russell at jrussell@murthalaw.com or 860.240.6032.
Murtha Cullina is the exclusive member firm in Connecticut for the American Property Tax Counsel (APTC) – the only organization of law firms providing major portfolio owners with a single source for their property tax reporting and tax reduction needs. Nicholas W. Vitti Jr. and Joseph D. Szerejko are the APTC representatives for Connecticut from Murtha Cullina.
Related Information
