Mangiafico v. Town of Farmington
163 A.3d 631
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Mangiafico owned a damaged, long-vacant house in Farmington that accrued multiple municipal citations under the town's blight ordinance (chapter 88) and related citation hearing procedures (chapter 91 / § 7-152c).
- For citations issued before September 9, 2013, the town sent § 7-152c(c) notices, hearings were requested, hearing officer assessments entered, liens recorded, and those assessments were not timely appealed administratively (resulting in a prior related appeal decided by this court).
- For citations issued between September 9, 2013 and May 27, 2014, the town did not send § 7-152c(c) notices within the statutory period; therefore it never commenced enforcement, no hearing officer was appointed, and no assessments were entered.
- Plaintiff nonetheless requested a hearing and filed a Superior Court "Petition to Reopen Assessment" under § 7-152c(g) before any assessment existed; the town moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (ripeness).
- Trial Court (Robaina, J.) denied the town's motion to dismiss, concluding the town had taken an inconsistent prior position and was judicially estopped from arguing ripeness; a later judgment (Scholl, J.) for plaintiff was entered without trial.
- On appeal, the Appellate Court vacated the judgment, held the claims as to the post-September 2013 citations were not ripe because no assessment had been entered, and remanded with direction to dismiss the action.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the petition was ripe / whether Superior Court had jurisdiction to hear an appeal under § 7-152c(g) when no assessment had been entered | Mangiafico argued the matter was ripe and that the town could be precluded from asserting non-ripeness | Farmington argued ripeness was lacking because no § 7-152c(c) notice, no enforcement, no hearing officer, and no assessment — so § 7-152c(g) appeal was unavailable | Held: Not ripe; court lacked jurisdiction because no assessment had been entered and the enforcement period expired; dismissal required |
| Whether the town had forfeited enforcement so that the appeal was moot or otherwise barred | Mangiafico argued town failed to send § 7-152c(c) notice within 12 months and thus forfeited enforcement, making the appeal moot | Farmington acknowledged potential time-bar but argued judicial relief was still available to avoid res judicata and to contest interlocutory ruling | Held: Appeal not moot for purposes of review; appellate court can remand to grant dismissal and vacate judgment to avoid collateral effects |
| Whether the town was judicially estopped from asserting lack of ripeness due to its prior position in related litigation | Mangiafico argued town previously asserted right to § 7-152c de novo hearings in earlier proceedings and thus cannot now claim ripeness defect | Farmington argued the prior proceeding involved different citations where it had properly commenced enforcement and assessments were entered, so positions were not inconsistent | Held: No judicial estoppel — prior position was not inconsistent because prior citations had proceeded to assessment while the later citations had not |
| Whether statutory administrative exhaustion/appeal requirements are mandatory for challenging municipal blight assessments | Mangiafico urged court intervention despite administrative procedure | Farmington asserted strict compliance with § 7-152c and the town code is mandatory; absent an assessment, judicial review is unavailable | Held: Mandatory — the appeal statute allows judicial review only from an entered assessment; strict compliance required |
Key Cases Cited
- Chapman Lumber, Inc. v. Tager, 288 Conn. 69 (Conn. 2008) (ripeness and justiciability implicate subject-matter jurisdiction)
- Milford Power Co., LLC v. Alstom Power, Inc., 263 Conn. 616 (Conn. 2003) (ripeness is essential to justiciability)
- Batchelder v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 133 Conn. App. 173 (Conn. App. 2012) (mootness and appellate jurisdiction principles)
- Assn. Resources, Inc. v. Wall, 298 Conn. 145 (Conn. 2010) (test and limits for judicial estoppel)
- Loisel v. Rowe, 233 Conn. 370 (Conn. 1995) (criteria for "capable of repetition, yet evading review" exception to mootness)