Opinion
HHBCV19025301S
07-12-2019
Urszula WOSZCZYNA v. TOWN OF PORTLAND
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
OPINION
Arnold W. Aronson, Judge Trial Referee
The plaintiff, Urszula Woszczyna, a self-represented party, brings this tax appeal challenging the valuation placed upon her property located at 50 Wellwyn Drive in the town of Portland (town). The plaintiff appealed the assessor’s valuation to the board of assessment appeals (BAA) which reduced her assessment for the revaluation year of October 1, 2016.
The plaintiff bases her appeal against the BAA on a violation of General Statutes § 12-62a. In this case, the plaintiff initiated this appeal pursuant to the incorrect statute as discussed below.
Practice Book § 10-3(a) provides that "[w]hen any claim made in a complaint ... is grounded on a statute, the statute shall be specifically identified by its number."
Section 12-62a recites as follows: "(a) Each municipality, as defined in section 7-381, shall establish a uniform assessment date of October first. (b) Each such municipality shall assess all property for purposes of the local property tax at a uniform rate of seventy percent of present true and actual value, as determined under section 12-63."
There is no provision in § 12-62a giving a taxpayer the right to appeal a decision of the BAA. The statutory right to appeal a decision of the BAA is provided for in General Statutes § 12-117a. It is a cardinal rule of statutory construction that unless a statute provides for an appeal from an administrative agency, none exists. See Gianetti v. Dunsby, 182 Conn.App. 855, 863, 191 A.3d 260 (2018). There is no absolute right of appeal from an administrative body, and further, there is no distinction between tax appeals and administrative appeals for jurisdictional purposes. Millward Brown, Inc. v. Commissioner of Revenue Services, 73 Conn.App. 757, 763-64, 811 A.2d 717 (2002).
General Statutes § 12-117a provides, in relevant part as follows: "Any person ... claiming to be aggrieved by the action of ... the [BAA] ... may, within two months from the date of the mailing of notice of such action, make application, in the nature of an appeal therefrom ... to the superior court ..."
The defendant moves to dismiss this complaint because the defendant claims that the plaintiff failed to appeal the BAA’s decision within two months of its decision fixing the assessment of her property as required by § 12-117a.
The relevant facts in this case are recited in the defendant’s 5/13/19 memorandum of law in support of motion to dismiss, pp. 2-3, as follows:
In 2017, plaintiff challenged the assessment of her property located at 50 Wellwyn Drive in the Town of Portland ("the Property"). That challenge was raised as a result of the town-wide revaluation that took place in 2016 for the October 1, 2016 Grand List. Plaintiff went before the BAA in March 2017 and the BAA adjusted her Property assessment, lowering it by $11, 830. (A true and accurate copy of the BAA Appeal Decision is attached to the Affidavit of the Town Assessor, Richard Lasky ("Lasky Affidavit") filed herewith.) Thereafter, the Portland Assessor changed the assessment in accordance with the BAA’s decision and issued a "Certificate of Change for the 2016 Grand List" on March 29, 2017 ...
The plaintiff did not appeal the BAA’s decision in 2017, or the 2017 Certificate of Change issued by the Assessor. Instead, plaintiff came back to the BAA seeking another adjustment to the Property assessment two years later- in 2019- based upon the October 1, 2018 Grand List when there was no new interim change in the assessment of the Property.
The BAA listened to her appeal on March 16, 2019 and then denied it, finding it was powerless to make any changes to the assessment fixed by it in 2017 pursuant to ... [§ ]12-111[.](Emphasis in original.)
When the plaintiff initially brought a tax appeal challenging the assessor’s valuation to the BAA, and the BAA reset the plaintiff’s property assessment lower than that arrived at by the assessor, that valuation is set in place until the town conducts a new town-wide revaluation. See Samnard Associates, LLC v. New Britain, 140 Conn.App. 290, 298, 58 A.3d 377 (2013).
With information obtained by the court from oral argument on the defendant’s motion to dismiss, it appears that the main problem in this case results from the plaintiff being successful in convincing the BAA to lower her assessment value for the October 1, 2016 Grand List, resulting in a change in assessment from $244, 790 to $232, 960. However, the town’s mill rate in 2016 was 32.98, resulting in a tax of $7, 683.02. In 2017, the town increased the mill rate to 33.81, resulting in a tax of $7, 876.38 based on an assessment of $232, 960. In comparison, using the original assessment of $244, 790 with a mill rate in 2017 of 33.81, the plaintiff’s tax bill would have been $8, 276.35. This is a $400 savings to the plaintiff and a loss to the town of revenue in the same amount.
Since the plaintiff has failed to comply with the statutes providing for an appeal from the action of the town’s BAA, the defendant’s motion to dismiss is granted. Judgment may enter in favor of the defendant, without costs to either party.