Chestnut Point Realty, LLC v. Town of E. Windsor, 153 A.3d 636

Chestnut Point Realty appealed a Board of Assessment Appeals decision denying a reduction in property assessment; the Board mailed notice on May 1, 2013.
Plaintiff filed a complaint in Superior Court on June 28, 2013 (returnable July 23, 2013); the town was served July 10, 2013 and return of service filed July 17, 2013.
The town moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing the appeal papers were not served within the two-month limit in General Statutes § 12-117a.
The trial court granted the motion and dismissed the appeal; the Appellate Court affirmed, and the Supreme Court granted certification limited to timeliness under § 12-117a.
The principal question: whether an appeal is "made"/"commenced" under § 12-117a when filed in court or only when the appeal papers are served on the municipality.
The Supreme Court concluded the appeal must be served on the taxing municipality within the two-month statutory period and affirmed dismissal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether an appeal under § 12-117a is "made" when papers are filed with the Superior Court or when served on the municipality	"Make application" means filing with the court; filing within two months suffices	Service on the town must occur within two months; statute's service/return language requires timely service	Service is required within two months; an appeal is commenced by service on the municipality
Whether defective board notice (stating appeals are to be "filed" within two months) excused late service	The misleading notice prevented timely appeal; limitation period did not run	Issue was raised too late and not litigated below; no factual finding of reliance	Rejected: not preserved, raised in reply, and fact-dependent; dismissal stands

Rocco v. Garrison, 268 Conn. 541 (Conn. 2004) (‘‘bringing’’ and ‘‘commencing’’ an action are equivalent)
Lacasse v. Burns, 214 Conn. 464 (Conn. 1990) (terms ‘‘commence’’ and ‘‘brought’’ interchangeable for initiation)
Danbury v. Dana Investment Corp., 249 Conn. 1 (Conn. 1999) (statutory appeal deadlines are mandatory)
Reardon v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 311 Conn. 356 (Conn. 2014) (statutory appeals require strict compliance with time limits)
Norwich v. Lebanon, 200 Conn. 697 (Conn. 1986) (legislative purpose of short tax-appeal periods is fiscal certainty)
Power v. Old Saybrook, 12 Conn. Supp. 382 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1944) (published instance holding tax appeal commenced by service)