Town of Weston v. Saugatuck Land Trust Co. (2011)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE

On October 6, 2010, the plaintiff, Town of Weston, filed a three-count complaint against the defendant, The Saugatuck Land Trust Company.   The plaintiff alleges the following facts.   The defendant owns three properties located at 11, 12 and 15 Pilot Hill Road in Weston, Connecticut.   The plaintiff assessed taxes on each property for 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009, and these taxes have become due and payable by the defendant.   The defendant has not paid any of the taxes it owes under the assessments for these years.   The plaintiff therefore seeks to foreclose on each property.

On February 1, 2011, the defendant filed an answer and special defense.   Its special defense is that the defendant is a charitable organization, and as such, is exempt from the taxes assessed by the plaintiff under state law.   The defendant argues that this special defense bars all three counts of the plaintiff's complaint.

On February 14, 2011, the plaintiff filed a motion to strike the defendant's special defense, on the ground that it is not a proper defense to a foreclosure action.   The plaintiff filed a memorandum in support of its motion.   On March 18, 2011, the defendant fifed an objection to the plaintiff's motion and a memorandum in support of its objection.   The court heard oral argument at short calendar on May 11, 2011.

DISCUSSION

“[T]he purpose of a motion to strike is to challenge the legal sufficiency of the allegations of a complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted.”  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  Keller v. Beckenstein, 117 Conn.App. 550, 562, 979 A.2d 1055, cert. denied, 294 Conn. 913, 983 A.2d 274 (2009).  “[A] plaintiff can [move to strike] a special defense ․” Nowak v. Nowak, 175 Conn. 112, 116, 394 A.2d 719 (1978);  see also Connecticut National Bank v. Voog, 233 Conn. 352, 354–55, 659 A.2d 172 (1995).  “In ․ ruling on the ․ motion to strike, the trial court recognized its obligation to take the facts to be those alleged in the special defenses and to construe the defenses in the manner most favorable to sustaining their legal sufficiency.”  Connecticut National Bank v. Douglas, 221 Conn. 530, 536, 606 A.2d 684 (1992).

The plaintiff argues that the defendant's special defense is not a proper defense to a foreclosure action.   Specifically, the plaintiff argues that a claim of unlawful assessment of taxes cannot be raised in an action to collect those taxes.

The defendant's response does not address the plaintiff's arguments.   Instead, the defendant restates its position that it is a charitable organization exempt from the taxes assessed, and that since on a motion to strike, the court must accept the facts alleged as true, the court should deny the plaintiff's motion to strike.

“It is well settled that, if the owner of the properties at the times of the assessments in question had wanted to challenge the assessments, it would have been required to follow the appropriate statutory procedures, either by (1) timely appealing from the assessments to the city's board of assessment appeals pursuant to General Statutes §§ 12–111 and 12–112, and from there by timely appealing to the trial court pursuant to General Statutes § 12–117a, or (2) timely bringing a direct action pursuant to General Statutes § 12–119.[A] taxpayer who has failed to utilize the available statutory remedies [may not] assert, in an action to collect a tax ․ that the tax has not been properly assessed.”  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  Danbury v. Dana Investment Corp., 249 Conn. 1, 12–14, 730 A.2d 1128 (1999).¹

Our Supreme Court faced the exact issue presented here in Hartford v. Faith Center, Inc., 196 Conn. 487, 493 A.2d 883 (1985).   There, the taxpayer failed to pay several years of assessed property taxes.   Instead of challenging the assessed taxes under the statutory provisions discussed above, the taxpayer waited until Hartford attempted to collect the taxes.   The taxpayer then argued, as a special defense to Hartford's attempted collection, that the taxes were illegally assessed.   The court wrote, “[s]ince the claim of unlawful assessment raised in the special defense could have been redressed through an appeal from the board of assessors under § 12–111 or an application to the court under § 12–119 within the specified time limitations, it could not properly be raised [as a special defense] in this action to collect taxes under § 12–161.”  Id., 491–92.   See also Canterbury v. Church of the Good Word, Superior Court, Judicial District of Windham, Docket No. CV 09 6000991 (July 16, 2010, Potter, J.T.R.) (“a claim of unlawful assessment ․ therefore cannot be raised as a special defense in an action to collect taxes under [General Statutes] § 12–161”).

As noted above, the defendant's special defense is that it is a charitable organization, and thus, it is exempt from these assessed taxes.   The defendant has failed to follow the procedures established for bringing a challenge to assessed property taxes.   As a matter of law, under Hartford v. Faith Center, Inc., supra, 196 Conn. 491–92, the defendant cannot raise its argument as a special defense.   Therefore, the court will grant the plaintiff's motion to strike the defendant's special defense.

HARTMERE, J.

FOOTNOTES

FN1. General Statutes § 12–111(a) provides, in relevant part:  “[a]ny person ․ claiming to be aggrieved by the doings of the assessors of such town may appeal therefrom to the board of assessment appeals ․ Such appeal shall be filed, in writing ․” General Statutes § 12–112 provides a time limit for any appeals brought under § 12–111.General Statutes § 12–119 provides, in relevant part:  “[w]hen it is claimed that a tax has been laid on property not taxable in the town or city whose tax list such property was set ․ the owner thereof ․ prior to the payment of such tax, may, in addition to the other remedies provided by law, make application for relief to the superior court for the judicial district in which such town or city is situated.”.  FN1. General Statutes § 12–111(a) provides, in relevant part:  “[a]ny person ․ claiming to be aggrieved by the doings of the assessors of such town may appeal therefrom to the board of assessment appeals ․ Such appeal shall be filed, in writing ․” General Statutes § 12–112 provides a time limit for any appeals brought under § 12–111.General Statutes § 12–119 provides, in relevant part:  “[w]hen it is claimed that a tax has been laid on property not taxable in the town or city whose tax list such property was set ․ the owner thereof ․ prior to the payment of such tax, may, in addition to the other remedies provided by law, make application for relief to the superior court for the judicial district in which such town or city is situated.”

Hartmere, Michael, J.