Horace Salmon v. City of Meriden (2013)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

On August 26, 2013, the plaintiff, who is self-represented, filed a motion to waive entry fee and pay costs of service, which was granted by the court.   On August 27, 2013, the plaintiff filed a complaint against the defendant, the city of Meriden, wherein the plaintiff alleges inter alia that he is the owner of real property located at 80 Hillside Avenue in Meriden, Connecticut, and that “[s]ince the year 2007 (and possibly going back earlier years) to the present year, the real estate taxes on the property ․ have not been duly, properly, nor correctly assessed due to substantially critical errors in the property description, on the Property Card, which was then in the Defendant's possession.”

The defendant filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's action on October 10, 2013.   The defendant claims that the civil summons lacks the signature of the individual taking recognizance pursuant to Practice Book §§ 8–3 and 8–4.   The defendant further requests, pursuant to Practice Book § 8–5(b), that the plaintiff be required to file a bond to prosecute in the amount of $250 within two weeks of an order of this court file such a bond.

The defendant also argues that the plaintiff has waived his right to claim that the taxes on the property were unjust, excessive, and improperly assessed.   The defendant, relying upon General Statutes §§ 12–117a and 12–119, claims that the plaintiff has failed to pursue the statutory remedies in a timely manner and is now barred from seeking them in Superior Court.   See Norwich v. Lebanon, 200 Conn. 697, 709, 513 A.2d 77 (1986);  see also Owner–Operators Independent Drivers Ass'n of America v. State, 209 Conn. 679, 692, 553 A.2d 1104 (1989).   In support of this argument, the defendant has attached an affidavit of the Meriden Tax Assessor attesting to the fact that, following the assessment for the Grand List of October 1, 2011, the plaintiff had filed an appeal with the Board of Assessment Appeals which resulted in a reduction of the assessment of the property by $4,900.

The plaintiff filed an “objection” to the motion to dismiss on November 4, 2013 wherein he asked that the defendant's motion be dismissed or stayed or the matter continued because the plaintiff was ill and needed a few weeks in order to present his side of the case to the court.   On November 10, 2013, the defendant filed a reply to the plaintiff's objection, noting, inter alia, that to the extent that the plaintiff was seeking an extension of time to respond to the motion to dismiss, it was outside of the ten-day requirement of the Practice Book. On November 19, 2013, the plaintiff filed a “reply” again asking that the motion to dismiss be denied, or that the entire matter be stayed until he recovered from his illness.

The matter was on the short calendar for November 25, 2013 at which the defendant appeared but the plaintiff did not appear and did not call or alert the clerk's office to any effect that he was unable to make it to court.   Defense counsel briefly addressed the issues and the court essentially took the matter on the papers.   At the present time, the court has not received any other communications or memorandum from the plaintiff.

After careful review of all the issues in this case, the court agrees with the defendant that the plaintiff did not pursue his remedies in an timely manner and therefore the case is dismissed.

Accordingly, there is no need to address the issue of a recognizance bond.

BY THE COURT

Jack W. Fischer, Judge

Fischer, Jack W., J.