City of Norwich v. Sheri Speer et al. (2014)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

On August 20, 2013, the plaintiff filed this motion for summary judgment.   The plaintiff, City of Norwich, seeks to collect municipal taxes on property known as 12 Rogers Avenue, Norwich, Connecticut.   The taxes on this property remain unpaid since 2008.   They request, in this motion, that liability be determined and that a further hearing be held to set the terms of the proposed judgment.   This motion is brought by affidavit from the tax collector of the City of Norwich.   The affidavit states the affiant has reviewed the books and records and that the property at 12 Rogers Avenue belongs to Sheri Speer, and as of August 31, 2013, the amount due and owing for municipal taxes and interest is $20,594.68.   This motion for summary judgment is also supported by affidavits from the assistant city clerk for the City of Norwich, attaching copies of resolutions of the council of the City of Norwich in which Michael E. Driscoll and Aimee L. Wickless authorized to prosecute actions as a corporation counsel for the City of Norwich.   There is also further resolution which identifies other members of the law firm of Brown Jacobson that may assist Attorney Wickless and Attorney Driscoll in carrying out the responsibilities of corporation counsel.

The defendant has filed an objection to this motion for summary judgment, but has not filed any affidavit opposing the merits of the plaintiff's claim for equitable relief.   The objection as summarized by the defendant is that “(i)t is impossible to grant a judgment of foreclosure without ascertaining the validity and nature of the purported interest in the property by alleged encumbrancer Seaport Capital Partners and William W. Backus Hospital, and only corporation counsel has the authority to appear and prosecute this action under Norwich City Charter, Chapter 16, Sec. 1. These are material disputes of fact that effect the outcome.”

These so-called defenses do not provide any reason to the court to deny this motion for summary judgment.   The first issue the defendant raises relates to disputes that she has with certain other entities namely Seaport Capital Partners and William W. Backus Hospital that have asserted liens against her property.   Her proper remedy in this case would be to pay the taxes, which are superior in right to all other encumbrancers on the property and, thereafter, defend her title against the liens of the encumbrancers.   There is nothing in her claims against the subsequent encumbrancers, which may be meritorious, that prevents the plaintiff municipality from collecting the taxes that are owed on the property.

The second challenge raised by the defendant to this action relates to the authority of the plaintiff's attorney to institute this action.   The defendant does not have standing to raise this claim.   The City is entitled to retain the lawyers of its choice.   It has passed corporate resolutions and it has cooperated with the prosecution of this action.   This defense is without merit and is asserted solely for the purposes of delay.

For these reasons, the motion for summary judgment is granted in favor of the City of Norwich as to liability only.   The defendant's cross motion for summary judgment is denied.

Cosgrove, J.

Cosgrove, Emmet L., J.