Summary
granting motion to dismiss on the basis that the Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear plaintiff's appeal of the assessed value of real property where plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies by first obtaining a decision from the Board of Assessment Appeals
Summary of this case from Marshall v. Town of MiddlefieldOpinion
No. CV054006613S
November 1, 2005
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE MOTION TO DISMISS
In July 8, 2005, the plaintiff, who is an attorney, filed an appeal from the action of the Board of Assessment Appeals (hereinafter the Board) for the Town of Watertown, appealing the assessed value of real property owned by him at 347 Hamilton Ave., Watertown CT. On September 5, 2005, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss claiming the court does not have subject matter jurisdiction to hear this appeal on two grounds. First that the plaintiff never filed an appeal with the Board and secondly even if the court were to find the plaintiff had filed an appeal with the Board, this appeal was untimely filed.
The court's jurisdiction to hear appeals from the actions of Boards of Tax Review is found in Connecticut General Statutes § 12-117a, which states in part "that any person aggrieved by the action of the Board of Tax Review or the Board of Assessment Appeals, as the case may be, in any town or city may, within two months from the date of mailing of notice of such action, make application, in the nature of an appeal therefrom, to the superior court for the judicial district in which such city or town is situated." In this case the plaintiff alleges he filed a timely appeal with the Board as evidenced by a copy of the appeal form dated February 13, 2004, attached to his complaint. The plaintiff in his affidavit states he mailed this form by first class mail and it was never returned to him. The defendant, through an affidavit of Carolyn Nadeau, the Town of Watertown Tax Assessor, dated September 15, 2005 attests that the Town has no record of the plaintiff's appeal being filed, nor do they have a copy of the document anywhere in their files.
The parties agree that the Board never held a hearing on the plaintiff's appeal and therefore no decision was rendered. The defendant contends that since the superior court only has jurisdiction to hear appeals from decisions of the board, the fact the board never made a decision renders the court powerless. The plaintiff argues that the board's failure to take any action is de facto an action/decision from which he can take an appeal. The court agrees with the defendant.
General Statute § 12-117a makes it clear that before the superior court can exercise its appellate power over the decisions of Administrative agencies, the agency must have made a decision. The court finds in this case no decision was ever made by the board. Thus, there is nothing to appeal. Before an appeal can be taken to the superior court, the appellant must exhaust all his administrative remedies. See Posick v. Town of Beacon Falls, 1996 Ct.Sup. 9600 Nov. 1996 Flynn, J. This is not a case where the Board received the appeal, placed it on a calendar and then took no action. The court also notes there is no evidence that the plaintiff, after not receiving notice of a hearing required by General Statute 12-111, ever followed up with the Board to verify what if anything had occurred. He simply chose to file this action.
Gen. 12-111 requires the appeal to be filed by February 20th and the board shall notify the taxpayer no later than March 1st of the date time and place of the hearing.
The court finds it has no jurisdiction over this matter due to the plaintiff's failure to exhaust his administrative remedies in obtaining a decision by the Board of Assessment Appeals. In light of this finding, the court does not need to address the timeliness of the appeal issue.
For the reasons stated, the defendant's motion to dismiss is granted.