DocketNumber: No. 392855
Citation Numbers: 1991 Conn. Super. Ct. 7263, 6 Conn. Super. Ct. 890
Judges: HENNESSEY, J.
Filed Date: 8/22/1991
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/17/2021
On April 2, 1991, the plaintiff, B G Realty, commenced this tax appeal against the defendant Town of Windsor Locks. Plaintiff is appealing a tax assessment of real property it owns which is located in Windsor Locks. This appeal is brought pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat.
Any person, . . . claiming to be aggrieved by the action of the Board of Tax Review in any town . . . may, within two months from the time of such action, make application, in the nature of an appeal therefrom, to the superior court for the judicial district in which such town or city is situated, which shall be accompanied by a citation to such town or city to appear before said Court . . . .
Conn. Gen. Stat.
Plaintiff, in its application, claims that on October 1, 1990, the Assessor of the Town of Windsor Locks assessed plaintiff's property at $2,209,550.00. Whereupon plaintiff appealed to the Board of Tax Review (the Board) for the town of Windsor Locks and requested a reduction of the assessment. On February 28, 1991, the Board lowered the assessment to $1,880,520.00. Subsequently, plaintiff brought this appeal pursuant to Section
Defendant has filed a motion to dismiss arguing that the court lacks jurisdiction because plaintiff has not alleged continuous ownership of the subject property, and because plaintiff failed to name the Board of Tax Review, an alleged necessary party, as a defendant. Plaintiff has filed a memorandum of law in opposition to the motion to dismiss.
A motion to dismiss tests whether the court has jurisdiction over the subject matter. Conn. Practice Book 143(1) (rev'd to 1978, as updated to October 1, 1990); Upson v. State,
Defendant's first argument is that the allegation that "the [plaintiff] was the owner of [the subject] real property" is insufficient to maintain this appeal. Defendant argues that plaintiff must allege that it "continues as owner of said premises." Defendant cites E. Ingraham Co. v. Bristol,
Moreover, it is not necessary for a plaintiff to prove that it "was and continues to be the owner of the subject property" in order to maintain an appeal brought pursuant to section
In order to maintain an appeal under section
Defendant's second argument is that section
The statutory language explicitly requires that the town or city be cited in and does not require that the Board of Tax Review be cited in Conn. Gen. Stat.
We conclude, therefore, that this court has jurisdiction. Accordingly, the motion to dismiss is denied.
M. Hennessey, J.
Upson v. State , 190 Conn. 622 ( 1983 )
Resnik v. City of New Haven , 12 Conn. Super. Ct. 47 ( 1943 )
Montgomery v. Town of Branford , 107 Conn. 697 ( 1928 )
General Realty Improvement Co. v. City of New Haven , 133 Conn. 238 ( 1946 )
E. Ingraham Co. v. Town & City of Bristol , 146 Conn. 403 ( 1959 )
Lerner Shops of Connecticut, Inc. v. Town of Waterbury , 151 Conn. 79 ( 1963 )