Opinion
No. CV 00 0502471S
June 9, 2003
MEMORANDUM
This action is a tax appeal by an association representing a planned development community within the city of Bristol. According to the plaintiff, each home owner in the planned community owns a fee simple interest in his or her land and house. Additionally, each owner has an undivided interest in the larger common areas maintained by the plaintiff.
The plaintiff's complaint recites that the association is responsible for the administration of certain property in the city of Bristol known as 5-13 Dakota Trail, 1-4 Cherokee Run, 34-44 Algonquin Way, 14-20 Tuscarora Place and 21-33 Mohican Lane. Plaintiff's complaint further alleges that, pursuant to General Statutes § 47-244 (a) (4), the plaintiff is authorized to institute this tax appeal on behalf of the individual property owners within the planned community.
Paragraph three of the plaintiff's complaint lists forty-four separate parcels of property within the subject planned development community in which the assessor has assessed the land and buildings in varying amounts from $92,443 to $122,671.
The defendant, city of Bristol, moves to dismiss this appeal claiming that the court lacks jurisdiction to hear this matter because the plaintiff does not have standing to maintain this action since the plaintiff association is not the owner of the forty-four properties which are the subject of this appeal. The plaintiff, in opposition to the motion to dismiss, maintains that it has authority under General Statutes § 47-244 (a) (4) to represent the individual homeowners in their tax appeal.
Section 47-244 (a) (4) is a statutory provision contained within chapter 828 of the common interest ownership act. Section 47-244 recites the powers given to the unit owner's association. The powers granted to such associations deal with common elements and common expenses. CT Page 8176-i Subparagraph four of § 47-244 (a) authorizes unit owner's associations to "(4) Institute, defend or intervene in litigation or administrative proceedings in its own name on behalf of itself or two or more unit owners on matters affecting the common interest of the community."
We look to Candlewood Landing Condominium Assn, Inc. v. New Milford, 44 Conn. App. 107, 686 A.2d 1007 (1997), for the resolution of this issue of whether the association may represent the interests of individual unit owners in challenging the assessor's valuation of their individual unit for property tax purposes. In Candlewood, the assessor for the town of New Milford assessed the individual units of the condominium and the common elements. The association appeared before the board of assessment appeals on behalf of the unit owners. The board reduced the assessed value of the units but not of the common elements. The association appealed from the decision of the board not to reduce the assessment on the common elements. The dispositive issue in the Candlewood case was "whether a condominium association has standing to appeal a municipal tax assessment of the common areas of a condominium." Id. at 107-08. The Candlewood court distinguished between separate ownership of property and the ownership of the common areas of the common interest community. The Candlewood court concluded that it was elementary to say that what property is not a unit is part of the common element. Id. at 109. The association was authorized by § 47-244 (a) (4) to take a tax appeal on behalf of the unit owners as to the valuation of the common elements only. There is no statutory language in § 47-244 (a) (4) that would authorize the association to take a tax appeal on behalf of the individual unit owners.
"The taxing scheme for condominiums is established by General Statutes § 47-204 (b) (2) as follows: "[E]ach unit shall be separately taxed and assessed, and no separate tax or assessment may be rendered against any common elements . . ." Included in the unit owner's tax assessment is his fractional share of the common elements." Candlewood v. New Milford, 44 Conn. 109-10. The trial court, in Candlewood, reasoned that since the common elements by statute are taxed to the individual unit owners, only the unit owners could appeal the assessment. Id. 110. The Candlewood court disagreed holding that § 47-244 (a) (4) authorizes the association to bring a tax appeal on behalf of all of the unit owners if the appeal deals only with the valuation of the common elements. Id. 111-12.
In a § 12-117a tax appeal, the ultimate question is the valuation of the taxpayer's property if the taxpayer is aggrieved by an overvaluation of his or her property by the assessor. United Technologies CT Page 8176-j Corp. v. East Windsor, 262 Conn. 11, 22-23, 807 A.2d 955 (2002). This means that a person can only be an aggrieved party if that person is the owner of the property. See RR Pool Home, Inc. v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 43 Conn. App. 563, 570 684 A. 24 1207 (1996); Davis v. Westport, 61 Conn. App. 834, 842 767 A.2d 1237 (2001). In the present action, the plaintiff association is not the owner of the forty-four units of land and buildings which are the subject of this appeal, and therefore, the association does not have standing to maintain this appeal on behalf of the unit owners.
The defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of standing is well taken. Accordingly, defendant's motion to dismiss is granted.
ARONSON, J.T.R. CT Page 8176-k