142 Conn. App. 326
Conn. App. Ct.2013Background
- This case concerns whether CUTPA applies to a town's building permit fees and revenue use.
- Plaintiffs allege Madison overcharges building permit fees and uses proceeds for non-regulatory purposes.
- Building official duties and fee schedules are authorized and regulated by state statute and regulation.
- § 42-110c(a)(1) provides a governmental regulatory exemption from CUTPA for actions licensed by law.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for Madison; plaintiffs appeal seeking CUTPA application.
- Supreme Court affirms, holding governmental exemption applies to municipal building permit fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does CUTPA apply to Madison’s building permit fees? | Pltf claims CUTPA should apply due to overcharging. | Madison argues exemption under 42-110c(a)(1) applies. | No; exemption applies; CUTPA does not apply. |
Key Cases Cited
- Danbury v. Dana Investment Corp., 249 Conn. 1, 730 A.2d 1128 (1999) (governmental exemption for statutorily regulated assessments)
- Connelly v. Housing Authority, 213 Conn. 354, 567 A.2d 1212 (1990) (government exemption for housing authority operations)
- Considine v. Waterbury, 279 Conn. 830, 905 A.2d 70 (2006) (immunity discussed; not controlling on CUTPA for municipal fees)