199 Conn.App. 88
Conn. App. Ct.2020Background
- Godbout sued four individual members of the East Lyme Board of Assessment Appeals under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 12-170 seeking monetary penalties for alleged official misconduct related to a motor-vehicle tax assessment appeal.
- In 2012 the FOIC previously found the town/board violated the FOIA; Godbout later requested recusals of certain board members, and three members recused at his 2018 hearing, leaving one member who adjourned the hearing.
- The board mailed minutes showing "no action" on his appeal; Godbout filed suit (initially small claims, then transferred to civil docket) claiming FOIA violations and § 12-170 official misconduct.
- Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (failure to exhaust FOIC remedies) and for legal insufficiency (no allegation of an unlawful act/omission by individual defendants).
- The trial court granted the motion to dismiss on both grounds. On appeal, the court held the trial court erred in dismissing for failure to exhaust administrative remedies but correctly concluded the complaint failed to plead facts sufficient to state a § 12-170 claim.
- The appellate court reversed the form of the judgment and directed that judgment be rendered for the defendants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Must a plaintiff seeking relief under § 12-170 first exhaust FOIC/administrative remedies? | Godbout: No — § 12-170 is a statutory civil remedy for official misconduct and does not require FOIC exhaustion; FOIC cannot grant monetary relief. | Defs: Yes — because claims assert FOIA noncompliance, Godbout must appeal to the FOIC under § 1-206/§ 4-183 before suing. | Held: No exhaustion required; § 12-170 contains no exhaustion mandate and FOIC lacks authority to impose the § 12-170 monetary remedy, so exhaustion would be futile. |
| Was a motion to dismiss an improper procedural vehicle to challenge pleading sufficiency? | Godbout: Motion to dismiss was improper; defendants should have moved to strike to allow repleading. | Defs: Motion to dismiss was the vehicle used; plaintiff never objected below. | Held: Godbout waived this argument by not raising it in the trial court; appellate court declines to consider it. |
| Did the complaint allege sufficient facts that each defendant committed an unlawful act or omitted a necessary act under § 12-170? | Godbout: Complaint alleged FOIA violations and official misconduct by individual members. | Defs: Allegations are conclusory; complaint lacks specific factual acts/omissions by individual defendants showing unlawful conduct. | Held: Complaint legally insufficient as a matter of law—allegations are legal conclusions and lack material facts showing individual unlawful acts or omissions. |
| What is the proper disposition/remedy on appeal? | Godbout: Sought reversal of dismissal and to proceed on merits. | Defs: Support affirmance. | Held: The trial court erred to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction but properly dismissed for failure to plead a § 12-170 claim; appellate court reversed the form of judgment and directed judgment for defendants. |
Key Cases Cited
- Levine v. Sterling, 300 Conn. 521 (Conn. 2011) (exhaustion of administrative remedies doctrine governs when courts must defer to administrative remedies)
- Stepney, LLC v. Fairfield, 263 Conn. 558 (Conn. 2003) (exhaustion doctrine and legislative intent in administrative schemes)
- Neiman v. Yale University, 270 Conn. 244 (Conn. 2004) (futility exception to exhaustion when agency lacks authority to grant requested relief)
- Cummings v. Tripp, 204 Conn. 67 (Conn. 1987) (administrative relief cannot encompass monetary awards; supports futility analysis)
- Egri v. Foisie, 83 Conn. App. 243 (Conn. App. 2004) (distinction between motion to dismiss and motion to strike for pleading sufficiency)
- Larobina v. McDonald, 274 Conn. 394 (Conn. 2005) (waiver of repleading rights when party fails to object to procedural vehicle used to test pleading)
- Faulkner v. United Technologies Corp., 240 Conn. 576 (Conn. 1997) (courts do not accept mere legal conclusions as pleaded facts)
- Cuozzo v. Orange, 315 Conn. 606 (Conn. 2015) (standards for reviewing motion to dismiss raising jurisdictional issues)