Ress v. Town of Suffield

12 Citing cases

  1. Dig. 60 & 80 Merritt v. Bd. of Assessment Appeals of Town of Trumbull

    211 Conn. App. 559 (Conn. App. Ct. 2022)

    (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 ...."

  2. Tucker v. Branford

    2010 Ct. Sup. 12146 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2010)

    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.

  3. Clark v. City of New Haven

    2005 Ct. Sup. 567 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2005)

    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.

  4. Ress v. Town of Suffield

    267 Conn. 920 (Conn. 2004)   Cited 3 times

    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.

  5. Marina v. Town of Westbrook

    119 Conn. App. 600 (Conn. App. Ct. 2010)   Cited 10 times
    Describing subject property, "one of New England's largest marinas," as "deriv[ing] income from slip rentals, summer and winter boat storage, and the rental of industrial, commercial and residential building space"

    " (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.

  6. Cadlerock Properties Joint Venture, v. Ashford

    98 Conn. App. 556 (Conn. App. Ct. 2006)   Cited 14 times
    In Cadlerock Properties Joint Venture, L.P. v. Ashford, 98 Conn.App. 556, 563, 909 A.2d 964 (2006), the court found that § 12-63e applied whether the property owner took title before or after the recording of any notice of the existence of a polluted or environmentally-hazardous condition on such property so long as the property owner had actual knowledge of the environmentally-hazardous condition existing on the property at the time of taking title.

    (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.

  7. Eisenberg v. Tuchman

    94 Conn. App. 364 (Conn. App. Ct. 2006)   Cited 14 times
    Endorsing partition based on value of property apportioned

    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."

  8. Pagett v. Westport Precision, Inc.

    82 Conn. App. 526 (Conn. App. Ct. 2004)   Cited 9 times
    Upholding trial court's direct connection conclusion because of "a correlation" between stated purpose and documents requested

    (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.

  9. Kelly Container v. Carey

    2005 Ct. Sup. 13222 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2005)

    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.

  10. DOWLING v. EAST LYME

    2005 Ct. Sup. 12368 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2005)

    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.