182 Conn.App. 855
Conn. App. Ct.2018Background
- Gianetti applied in 2009 for tax relief under Easton’s "2009 Tax Relief For The Elderly Ordinance." The town assessor denied relief and Gianetti appealed to the Board of Selectmen, which also denied his appeal.
- Gianetti previously brought a mandamus action over the same denial; that action was dismissed and not appealed.
- In 2015 Gianetti sued the selectmen individually alleging wrongful denial of relief under the ordinance. Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; the trial court denied the motion, held a one-day hearing, and then decided the case on the merits for the defendants.
- Defendants raised lack of jurisdiction throughout; on appeal they argued the suit is in substance an administrative appeal but no statute authorizes an appeal to Superior Court from the Board’s decision.
- The appellate court concluded the action was an administrative appeal requiring statutory authorization; none existed and UAPA review did not apply. The court reversed and directed dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Superior Court had jurisdiction to review Board’s denial of municipal tax relief | Gianetti framed suit as wrongful denial of ordinance relief and sought court review of Board’s decision | The complaint is effectively an administrative appeal; no statute authorizes Superior Court review of this municipal tax relief decision | No jurisdiction: administrative appeals to courts exist only by statute; none authorizes this appeal |
| Whether UAPA provides a route for judicial review | Plaintiff relied on need for court review of the Board’s action | Defendants argued UAPA applies only to state agencies and not to town selectmen | UAPA inapplicable: UAPA covers state agencies and the Board is not a §4-166 agency; contested-case requirement not satisfied |
| Whether relief could be sought via mandamus or other common-law remedy | Plaintiff previously attempted mandamus and now requests relief under the ordinance | Defendants note prior mandamus dismissal and that mandamus is not being pursued here | Court treated the suit as administrative appeal; mandamus unavailable as pleaded and prior mandamus was dismissed; merits review improper without jurisdiction |
| Whether trial court erred by deciding merits without deciding jurisdiction first | Plaintiff proceeded to merits hearing and judgment | Defendants repeatedly raised jurisdiction at hearing and post-trial | Court must resolve subject-matter jurisdiction first; because it lacked jurisdiction, merits ruling was improper and judgment must be vacated and case dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Ajadi v. Comm'r of Correction, 280 Conn. 514 (reviewing requirement to address subject-matter jurisdiction immediately)
- Fedus v. Planning & Zoning Comm'n, 278 Conn. 751 (administrative appeals to courts exist only by statutory authority)
- Reinke v. Sing, 328 Conn. 376 (standard of plenary review for subject-matter jurisdiction)
- Lewis v. Gaming Policy Bd., 224 Conn. 693 (UAPA contested-case requirement: rights must be statutorily required to be determined by agency)
- Maresca v. Ridgefield, 35 Conn. App. 769 (board of selectmen not an "agency" under UAPA)
- Tazza v. Planning & Zoning Comm'n, 164 Conn. 187 (courts lack jurisdiction over administrative appeals absent statutory authorization)