138 Conn. App. 1
Conn. App. Ct.2012Background
- Plaintiff Frederick Cornelius challenged a Hartford tax sale of 78 Beacon Street, Hartford.
- Plaintiff filed in 2008 seeking to quiet title and to nullify the tax sale for alleged lack of notice under §12-157.
- Defendants Hartford and Rosario moved for summary judgment; plaintiff cross-moved for summary judgment.
- Plaintiff purchased the property from Mercury Mortgage Company on November 22, 2004, but did not record his deed.
- Taxes on the property were unpaid from January 1, 2004 through July 1, 2007; Mercury was the record owner; no record showed plaintiff’s interest.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff has statutory standing to challenge Mercury’s notice | Cornelius has standing under §12-159 to contest notice to predecessor | Plaintiff lacks standing because he had no recorded interest | Plaintiff has statutory standing under §12-159 |
| Whether notice to Mercury satisfied §12-157(a) | Notice to Mercury was not delivered; further notices were futile | Defendants satisfied §12-157(a) by notices to Mercury, Hunt Leibert, and Metropolitan; others unnecessary | Notice satisfied under §12-157(a) as applied to circumstances |
| Whether due process was satisfied by additional steps taken | Accuint searches and agent searches were insufficient | Additional steps were reasonable; Jones v. Flowers guided the analysis | Additional steps satisfied due process under Jones v. Flowers |
| Whether plaintiff’s unrecorded interest was reasonably ascertainable | Unrecorded interest reasonably ascertainable due to occupation and knowledge by city | Unrecorded interests are not reasonably ascertainable; §12-157(a) targets recorded interests | Plaintiff's interest not reasonably ascertainable; §12-157(a) allowed notice to recorded interests only |
| Whether plaintiff could testify at or obtain a continuance for affidavits at summary judgment | Should be allowed to testify in lieu of affidavits; request for continuance | Oral testimony not allowed on summary judgment; affidavits required | Court did not err in not allowing testimony or continuing; documentary evidence required |
Key Cases Cited
- Mennonite Board of Missions v. Adams, 462 U.S. 791 (U.S. 1983) (due process requires notice reasonably ascertainable for unrecorded interests)
- Jones v. Flowers, 547 U.S. 220 (U.S. 2006) (notice reasonably calculated to reach recipients; further steps when notice fails)
- Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (U.S. 1950) (due process requires notice reasonably calculated to apprise interested parties)
- Associates Financial Services of America, Inc. v. Sorensen, 46 Conn. App. 721 (Conn. App. 1997) (notice provisions satisfy due process under § 12-157(a))
- Soracco v. Williams Scotsman, Inc., 292 Conn. 86 (Conn. 2009) (statutory standing analysis and aggrievement)