(Internal quotation marks omitted.) Ress v. Suffield , 80 Conn. App. 630, 631–32, 836 A.2d 475 (2003), cert. denied, 267 Conn. 920, 841 A.2d 1191 (2004). "In § 12-117a tax appeals, the trial court tries the matter de novo and the ultimate question is the ascertainment of the true and actual value of the [taxpayer's] property. ... At the de novo proceeding, the taxpayer bears the burden of establishing that the assessor has overassessed its property. ... Once the taxpayer has demonstrated aggrievement by proving that its property was overassessed, 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 opinion of the appraisers, the claims of the parties in light of all the circumstances in evidence bearing on value, and his own general knowledge of the elements going to establish value ...."
While the sale price of comparable property may be adjusted for dissimilarities with respect to one or more of these characteristics, at some point when the dissimilarities overwhelm the similarities, the property is not comparable to the subject property. Characteristics regarding the land can include the fact that a portion of the land may be wetland since it can have an effect on value, Ress v. Suffield, 80 Conn.App. 630, 632 (2003). Improvement characteristics, as Powell notes include the age of the structure used for comparison.
In an appeal pursuant to § 12-117a, "the trial court hears the tax appeal de novo on the premise that, throughout, it is the taxpayer who bears the burden of establishing an overassessment . . ." Bess v. Suffield, 80 Conn.App. 630-31 (2003); Ireland v. Wethersfield, 242 Conn. 550, 557, 698 A.2d 888 (1997). The owner of the property on the assessment date, October 1, 2001, was Phyllis L. Clark, the mother of plaintiff, William F. Clark. The property was conveyed to plaintiffs by warranty deed from Phyllis L. Clark, dated April 17, 2002.
Decided February 11, 2004 The plaintiff's petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 80 Conn. App. 630 (AC 23807), is denied. Vincent M. Marino and Barbara M. Schellenberg, in support of the petition.
" (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Ress v. Suffield, 80 Conn. App. 630, 632, 836 A.2d 475 (2003), cert. denied, 267 Conn. 920, 841 A.2d 1191 (2004). We will reverse the decision only if it is clearly erroneous.
(Internal quotation marks omitted.) Ress v. Suffield, 80 Conn. App. 630, 633-34, 836 A.2d 475 (2003), cert. denied, 267 Conn. 920, 841 A.2d 1191 (2004). The court found that Stewart's appraisal was more credible than the town's valuation.
However, "it is basic to our jurisprudence that credibility determinations are within the exclusive province of the court." Ress v. Suffield, 80 Conn. App. 630, 633, 836 A.2d 475 (2003), cert. denied, 267 Conn. 920, 841 A.2d 1191 (2004). "In a case tried before a court, the trial judge is the sole arbiter of the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given specific testimony. . . . The credibility and the weight of expert testimony is judged by the same standard, and the trial [judge] is privileged to adopt whatever testimony he reasonably believes to be credible. . . . On appeal, we do not retry the facts or pass on the credibility of witnesses."
(Internal quotation marks omitted.) Ress v. Suffield, 80 Conn. App. 630, 632, 836 A.2d 475 (2003), cert. denied, 267 Conn. 920, 841 A.2d 1191 (2004). When explaining the reason for its denial, the court stated: "I'm not going to order attorney's fees. I think this situation is very much like a divorce situation.
Montinieri's testimony was vague and contradictory. He testified that the events in question occurred in September 2002, but later said that they occurred in July. Also, while he stated that two of the containers were left by the defendants in protected wetlands, the court was provided with no map or plan depicting wetlands on the South Street property. See Ress v. Suffield, 80 Conn.App. 630, 633, 836 A.2d 475 (2003), cert. denied, 267 Conn. 920, 841 A.2d 1191 (2004) (trial court concluded that use by the plaintiff's appraiser of a not to scale soil survey was "not a credible substitute for a soil engineer's survey of the wetlands on the subject lots . . ."). The only documentary evidence presented as to the claimed amount paid to CWPM is Plaintiff's Exhibit 5. This "invoice" is blank where the space for the identification of CPWM's customer is provided next to the words "BILL TO.
The burden rests on the property owner, as a threshold issue, to establish over-valuation. Ress v. Suffield, 80 Conn.App. 630, 635 (2003). In this case, plaintiff has failed to meet this burden.