The Connecticut Supreme Court (Court) recently expressed criticism for the City of Danbury (City) during oral arguments regarding untimely filed property tax appraisals in a pending appeal. Several property owners, whose property assessments range from $1.5M to $2.8M, are defending the lower court’s decision to hear their appeals based on a Connecticut statute, which states: “If [the] appraisal is not timely filed, the court may dismiss the application” (emphasis added). While the property owners argue that the language of the statute gives the lower court discretion to hear untimely filed appeals, the City asserts that the statute demands a mandatory dismissal.
“It’s sort of Amelia Bedelia construction, literalism run amok, and I think the goal of the court is to read the language of the statute in the most reasonable way.”
Background
This case arises from a common, yet consequential, mistake by the property owners. Connecticut law requires any property owner filing a tax appeal for real property valued over $1M to file an accompanying appraisal within 120 days of the start of the case. In this joint appeal, the property owners each timely filed an appeal of a property tax assessment in the Connecticut Superior Court and also received a 60 day extension of the appraisal deadline. However, the property owners did not file the appraisal on the dockets by the extended deadline.
Initially, the trial court dismissed each appeal for failure to timely file the appraisals. However, after the property owners moved to open and reargue the case, the trial court changed course and sided with the property owners, setting aside the dismissals. The City of Danbury is now challenging the decision on the grounds that the lower court did not have jurisdiction to hear the case because of the late filing.
Amelia bedelia reading
In its brief, the City emphasizes the statute requiring the filing of an appraisal within 120 of the commencement of the case. This statute, the City says, “is intended to plainly and unambiguously place a mandatory requirement on the [property owners].” Failing to file the appraisal is a failure to satisfy one of the essential elements of the statute, in the City’s opinion. The City also claims that the intent of the legislature in imposing this statutory requirement was to reduce the amount of time and money spent on settling tax appeals. This “protection” would be lost if the City were “forced to litigate these tax appeals on the merit.”
Although the City attempts to minimize it, the main issue of this case centers around another statute. The statute at issue states: “If [the] appraisal is not timely filed, the court may dismiss the application.” The property owners stress their interpretation, which is that the statute gives the courts discretionary authority to hear or dismiss late appeals, but does not require an automatic dismissal. The City, on the other hand, says that a property tax appeal cannot proceed without the filing of a timely appraisal, making it a jurisdictional requirement. The City also notes that the property owners did not even have their appraisals prepared by the deadline, which it believes further supports a dismissal.
During oral arguments, the Connecticut Supreme Court heavily criticized the City’s position, stating that it would hear reasonable arguments, but “the answer is not to change ‘may’ to ‘will’.” Counsel for the property owners said that all they were asking the Court to do is “take a very strict constructive look at the statute.” The case is pending a decision.
daunting deadlines
As if tax appeals are not already complicated enough, adhering to statutory deadlines can make compliance even more difficult. Sometimes a simple mistake can lead to increased costs in litigation, subsequent appeals, and even an outright dismissal of your case with no consideration.
At Libertas Unlimited, we specialize in managing the requirements of an appeal so your case stays on track. Leave the deadlines up to us, so you can focus on the outcome.