Avoletta v. State
98 A.3d 839
Conn. App. Ct.2014Background
- Peter and Matthew Avoletta (and their mother Joanne) allege the State failed to provide a safe, free appropriate public education due to school building mold/indoor air problems, causing them to attend private school and seek tuition reimbursement.
- Plaintiffs filed a notice of claim with the Claims Commissioner on May 2, 2007; the Claims Commissioner dismissed the claim as untimely under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 4-148(a).
- Plaintiffs sought legislative review under §§ 4-158 to 4-159; the General Assembly adopted House Joint Resolution No. 11-34 (2011), vacating the Commissioner’s dismissal and authorizing the named claimants to sue the State within one year of final adoption.
- Plaintiffs sued in Superior Court in May 2012; the State moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, arguing sovereign immunity because the resolution was procedurally improper and constituted an unconstitutional public emolument.
- The trial court held the plaintiffs’ claims were untimely and that the joint resolution constituted an unconstitutional public emolument (no public purpose shown), and dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
- The Appellate Court affirmed, adopting reasoning from Morneau v. State and concluding (1) the plaintiffs discovered actionable harm well before their 2007 filing, and (2) the resolution conferred a private benefit without a discernible public purpose.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of claim accrual under § 4-148(a) | Plaintiffs: actionable harm accrued Sept. 15, 2006 (or later); 2007 Claims filing was within one year. | State: plaintiffs discovered actionable harm when they removed their children from public school (2003–2004); 2007 filing was untimely. | Held: claim was untimely; plaintiffs had knowledge of actionable harm well before 2007. |
| Validity of using a joint resolution (vs. special act) to authorize suit | Plaintiffs: resolution adopted under §§ 4-158/4-159 was proper and not subject to § 4-148(b) constraints. | State: procedural challenge but court found legislature could act by joint resolution under §§ 4-158/4-159. | Held: legislature permissibly vacated Commissioner’s decision by joint resolution; procedural argument rejected. |
| Whether the resolution is an unconstitutional public emolument (art. I, § 1) | Plaintiffs: resolution served a public purpose or at least was not solely for private gain; State failed to prove sole objective was personal gain. | State: resolution conferred exclusive private benefit (right to sue) without any public purpose, violating the public emoluments clause. | Held: resolution was an unconstitutional public emolument — no public purpose shown; authorization was an exclusive private benefit and invalid. |
| Sovereign immunity / subject-matter jurisdiction | Plaintiffs: legislative authorization removed sovereign immunity barrier. | State: absent a valid legislative waiver serving public purpose, sovereign immunity bars suit. | Held: because resolution was invalid as a public emolument, sovereign immunity bars the suit; dismissal affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lagassey v. State, 268 Conn. 723 (Conn. 2004) (discusses limits on legislative waivers of sovereign immunity and when untimely claims may be remedied)
- Morneau v. State, 150 Conn. App. 237 (Conn. App. 2013) (held identical joint resolution was an unconstitutional public emolument absent public purpose)
- Chotkowski v. State, 240 Conn. 246 (Conn. 1997) (public emoluments clause requires sole objective to be private gain for invalidation to attach)
- DePietro v. Dept. of Public Safety, 126 Conn. App. 414 (Conn. App. 2011) (sovereign immunity and need for legislative waiver to sue the state)
- Hayes Family Ltd. Partnership v. Glastonbury, 132 Conn. App. 218 (Conn. App. 2011) (standard of review for motion to dismiss asserting lack of subject-matter jurisdiction)