205 Conn.App. 749
Conn. App. Ct.2021Background
- Kenneth Black appealed a West Hartford motor-vehicle assessment for a 2017 Subaru after the local Board of Assessment Appeals reduced but did not eliminate the assessed value. He also sued the state Office of Policy and Management (OPM), alleging OPM violated Conn. Gen. Stat. § 12-71d by recommending NADA "clean retail" values rather than the statute's "average retail price."
- Black sought declaratory relief, a tax refund (< $2,500), costs, and other equitable relief. He attached OPM's September 28, 2018 memorandum recommending the October 2018 NADA guides and NADA excerpts showing categories including "clean retail."
- OPM moved to dismiss, arguing sovereign immunity, lack of standing (aggrievement), failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and nonjusticiability/ripeness. The trial court granted dismissal on sovereign immunity grounds.
- On appeal, the Appellate Court affirmed but on the alternative ground that Black lacked standing: he was not "classically aggrieved" because his claimed interest (how vehicles generally are assessed) is shared by all taxpayers and OPM did not itself assess his vehicle.
- The appellate court did not reach the merits of whether OPM’s recommendation violated § 12-71d; it concluded the court lacked jurisdiction over Black’s claims against OPM because he failed to show a specific, personal, legally protected interest.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sovereign immunity of OPM | OPM acted in excess of § 12-71d, so sovereign immunity should not bar suit | State and agencies are immune absent waiver or statutory exception | Trial court dismissed on sovereign immunity; appellate court affirmed on alternative ground and did not resolve immunity issue |
| Standing / classical aggrievement | Black was personally aggrieved because OPM’s recommendation caused an improper valuation of his vehicle | Black’s injury is common to all taxpayers; OPM only recommended a schedule and did not assess his car | Appellate court: Black lacks classical aggrievement; interest is shared, so no standing; dismissal affirmed |
| Statutory interpretation: "average retail price" vs NADA "clean retail" | OPM based recommendations on NADA "clean retail," contrary to statutory "average retail price" | OPM’s memorandum and staff email equate NADA "clean retail" with "average retail price" | Court did not decide merits; noted OPM materials represented the values as equivalent and declined to reach issue due to lack of jurisdiction |
| Exhaustion / ripeness | Black had pursued the assessor/board appeal and then sued under § 12-117a | OPM argued administrative remedies were not exhausted and claims might be nonjusticiable/ripeness problem | Appellate court did not resolve exhaustion/ripeness because standing defect disposed of claims against OPM |
Key Cases Cited
- Allen v. Commissioner of Revenue Services, 324 Conn. 292 (Conn. 2016) (sovereign immunity principle)
- DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Law, 284 Conn. 701 (Conn. 2007) (exceptions to sovereign immunity for declaratory/injunctive relief and excess of statutory authority)
- Trikona Advisers Ltd. v. Haida Investors Ltd., 318 Conn. 476 (Conn. 2015) (classical vs statutory aggrievement standard)
- State Marshal Assn. of Connecticut, Inc. v. Johnson, 198 Conn. App. 392 (Conn. App. 2020) (standing as subject matter jurisdiction; plenary review)
- Board of Education v. Bridgeport, 191 Conn. App. 360 (Conn. App. 2019) (jurisdictional issues may be raised at any time)
- Gershon v. Back, 201 Conn. App. 225 (Conn. App. 2020) (where court lacks jurisdiction it must dismiss)