182 Conn. App. 855
Conn. App. Ct.2018Background
- Charles Gianetti applied (Apr 23, 2009) for tax relief under Easton’s 2009 Senior Tax Relief Ordinance; assessor denied relief and Gianetti appealed to the Board of Selectmen as provided by §14(g).
- The Board held a hearing, informed Gianetti it intended to deny the appeal and invited further documentation; Gianetti did not provide additional information and the Board denied the appeal.
- Gianetti previously brought and lost a mandamus action challenging the Board’s denial (dismissed Oct 30, 2014) and did not appeal that judgment.
- Gianetti filed a new Superior Court action (2015) against the selectmen claiming wrongful denial of relief; defendants moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and later renewed that jurisdictional defense at trial.
- The trial court decided the case on the merits and entered judgment for defendants, but the Appellate Court held the Superior Court lacked jurisdiction to hear an administrative appeal from the Board in this matter.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Superior Court had jurisdiction to review Board’s denial of municipal tax relief | Gianetti sought judicial review of the Board’s decision denying his appeal; characterized action as challenge to Board’s denial | No statutory authority exists to appeal a Board of Selectmen decision on municipal tax relief to Superior Court; action is an administrative appeal requiring statutory basis | Held: No jurisdiction. Administrative appeals to courts exist only by statute; none authorizes this appeal. Case dismissed. |
| Whether UAPA (Conn. Gen. Stat. §4-166 et seq.) provided a route for review | Impliedly sought judicial review under administrative-review principles | UAPA applies only to state agencies; Board of Selectmen is not an ‘‘agency’’ and requirements for a ‘‘contested case’’ are unmet | Held: UAPA inapplicable; no UAPA review. |
| Whether prior mandamus dismissal or res judicata/collateral estoppel barred action | Plaintiff did not rely on mandamus in this suit; sought distinct cause of action | Defendants argued prior mandamus adjudication and related doctrines preclude relitigation | Court did not reach merits; Appellate Court declined to decide preclusion because lack of jurisdiction was dispositive |
| Whether trial court properly ruled on merits despite jurisdictional objection | Plaintiff proceeded to litigate merits at trial | Defendants repeatedly raised jurisdiction; point must be resolved first | Held: Trial court erred to decide merits before resolving jurisdiction; decision reversed and remanded with direction to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Ajadi v. Comm’r of Correction, 280 Conn. 514 (2006) (jurisdictional issues must be addressed immediately)
- Woodmont Assn. v. Milford, 85 Conn. 517 (1912) (absence of jurisdiction halts further proceedings)
- Statewide Grievance Comm. v. Rozbicki, 211 Conn. 232 (1989) (courts should not rule on merits when jurisdiction is lacking)
- Gurliacci v. Mayer, 218 Conn. 531 (1991) (all other action halts when subject matter jurisdiction is questioned)
- Reinke v. Sing, 328 Conn. 376 (2018) (subject matter jurisdiction is reviewed de novo)
- Fedus v. Planning & Zoning Comm’n, 278 Conn. 751 (2006) (no absolute right to judicial appeal from administrative bodies; appeal exists only by statute)
- Delagorges v. Bd. of Educ., 176 Conn. 630 (1979) (administrative appeals permitted only where statute authorizes review)
- Tazza v. Planning & Zoning Comm’n, 164 Conn. 187 (1972) (courts lack jurisdiction over administrative appeals absent statutory authorization)
- Lewis v. Gaming Policy Bd., 224 Conn. 693 (1993) (contested-case requirement under UAPA depends on statutory obligation to determine rights)
- Peters v. Dep’t of Social Servs., 273 Conn. 434 (2005) (contested case requirement for UAPA review explained)
- Edwards v. Code Enforcement Comm., 13 Conn. App. 1 (1987) (UAPA applies only to state agencies)
- Maresca v. Ridgefield, 35 Conn. App. 769 (1994) (board of selectmen is not an agency under §4-166(1))
- Fagan v. Stamford, 179 Conn. App. 440 (2018) (Superior Court acts as appellate body in administrative appeals)