Summary
In West v. Gunther (supra) and Matter of Perillo (supra) it is indicated that ancillary procedure is dictated by statute (Surrogate's Ct. Act, §§ 184, 271, 314, subd. 13). Surrogate FOLEY in Matter of Mathews (supra) cited Gasper v. Wales (223 App. Div. 89) as authority for ancillary guardianship.
Summary of this case from Matter of StarrOpinion
No. CV 064021464
July 7, 2009
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
This tax appeal, which was brought pursuant to C.G.S. § 12-177a, was tried by the court on March 11, 2009. The appeal is taken on the Town of West Haven's reassessment of property values on the Grand List of October 1, 2005. The assessor determined that the full value of the subject premises at 6 Holcomb Street in West Haven was $758,200.00. The property is located in a FEMA-designated flood hazard area in the West Shore of West Haven. The subject property is located in a R-2 zone which requires a minimum lot size of 16,000. The subject property does not conform with this requirement, but is a pre-existing, non-conforming lot. The property consists of improved property with an obstructed water view on a dead end street off of Ocean Avenue.
It is well-settled that pursuant to § 12-117a, the trial court tries tax appeals, de novo determining the ultimate question, which "is the ascertainment of the true and actual value of the [taxpayer's] property . . . At the de nova proceedings, the taxpayer bears the burden of establishing that the assessor has over assessed the property . . . Once the taxpayer has demonstrated aggrievement by proving that its property was over assessed, the trial court [will] then undertake a further inquiry to determine the amount of the reassessment that would be just . . . The trier of fact must arrive at [its] own conclusions as to the value of the taxpayer's property] by weighing the opinions of the appraisers, the claims of the parties in light of all circumstances in evidence bearing on value, and its own general knowledge of the elements going to establish value . . ." Aetna Life Insurance v. City of Middletown, 77 Conn.App. 21, 25-26, 822 A.2d 330, cert. denied, 265 Conn. 901, 829 A.2d 419 (2003).
At trial the court heard testimony from the plaintiff, James Gunther, plaintiff's expert, Philip Ball, and the defendant's expert, Charles Liberti. Both of the experts are licensed real estate appraisers. Both appraisers agreed that the market data or direct sales comparison approach is most appropriate for determining the market value of the property in this case. Based upon the data he gathered, Ball offered the opinion that the value of the property is $255.00 per square foot or $667,080.00. Liberti opined, based upon his comparables, that the value of the property was closer to $760,000.00,
After reviewing of the evidence submitted by both sides, including the testimony offered by both appraisers, this court concludes that the plaintiffs have met their burden of proving that the property was over-valued. The court finds the opinion offered by Ball persuasive; and finds that the fair market value of the property is $667,080.00.