Nutmeg Housing Development Corp. v. Colchester
151 A.3d 358
| Conn. | 2016Background
- Nutmeg Housing Development Corporation owns a 32-unit, age- and income-restricted apartment complex subject to a 99-year covenant and eligible for federal low-income housing tax credits.
- For tax year 2011 Colchester assessed the property at about $2.29 million; Nutmeg appealed to the Board of Assessment Appeals and then to Superior Court under § 12-117a claiming overvaluation.
- Plaintiff relied on an appraisal by Christopher Italia valuing the property at about $1.1 million (blend of income-capitalization and sales-comparison approaches); Italia used market-rate comparables and did not account for age/income restrictions. Italia was unavailable at trial; a colleague, Josephine Aberle, adopted his report and testified without having visited the property.
- Town’s trial expert, Robert Silverstein, used an income-capitalization approach adjusted for the property’s age/income restrictions and included the value of tax credits, concluding a value of about $2.5 million.
- After trial plaintiff submitted an alternative § 8-216a calculation in its posttrial brief (valuation ≈ $526,940) without expert testimony to support the figures.
- Trial court found plaintiff failed to prove aggrievement because Italia’s appraisal was not credible; therefore court did not reach whether § 8-216a applied or whether tax credits could be included. Judgment for town affirmed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff proved aggrievement (overvaluation) under § 12-117a | Nutmeg argued town overvalued property and relied on Italia’s appraisal and posttrial § 8-216a calc | Town argued plaintiff failed threshold burden because plaintiff’s expert testimony was not credible | Held: Plaintiff failed to prove aggrievement; trial court’s credibility finding was not clearly erroneous and judgment for town affirmed |
| Whether valuation must follow § 8-216a (income-capitalization for low-income housing) | Nutmeg contended § 8-216a governs valuation and excludes tax-credit value | Town noted court did not reach valuation statute because plaintiff failed threshold showing; Silverstein used income-capitalization adjusted for restrictions | Held: Court did not decide whether § 8-216a applied; left for another day because plaintiff failed to establish aggrievement |
| Whether tax credits may be included in valuation | Nutmeg argued tax credits should not be included | Town’s expert included tax-credit value; court declined to rule on the issue due to threshold disposition | Held: Not addressed—claim not decided on merits |
| Admissibility/weight of plaintiff’s posttrial § 8-216a calculation (no expert testimony) | Nutmeg relied on its own calculation in briefing as a valuation under § 8-216a | Town argued unsworn, expert-less calculations insufficient to meet burden | Held: Court properly rejected the unsworn posttrial calculation; valuation unsupported without expert testimony |
Key Cases Cited
- Ireland v. Wethersfield, 242 Conn. 550 (Conn. 1997) (taxpayer bears burden to prove aggrievement; court may credit municipality when taxpayer’s appraiser is unpersuasive)
- Konover v. West Hartford, 242 Conn. 727 (Conn. 1997) (trial court weighs appraisers’ opinions and may rely on its own knowledge in valuation)
- Redding Life Care, LLC v. Redding, 308 Conn. 87 (Conn. 2013) (two-step function in § 12-117a appeals: threshold aggrievement then valuation; review standards)
- Torres v. Waterbury, 249 Conn. 110 (Conn. 1999) (trial judge is sole arbiter of witness credibility, including expert testimony)
- United Technologies Corp. v. East Windsor, 262 Conn. 11 (Conn. 2002) (clearly erroneous standard defined for factual findings)
- Breezy Knoll Assn., Inc. v. Morris, 286 Conn. 766 (Conn. 2008) (distinguishes de novo review for legal questions from abuse-of-discretion where trial court rejects an appraisal method)
- Priest v. Edmonds, 295 Conn. 132 (Conn. 2010) (purpose of articulation is to clarify factual and legal bases of the trial court’s decision)
- Lopiano v. Lopiano, 247 Conn. 356 (Conn. 1998) (appellate courts generally will not consider constitutional claims not raised at trial)
- Connecticut Education Assn., Inc. v. Milliman USA, Inc., 105 Conn. App. 446 (Conn. App. 2008) (pleadings limit issues at trial; parties are bound by claims pleaded)