Rutka v. City of Meriden
145 Conn. App. 202
Conn. App. Ct.2013Background
- Plaintiff John Rutka owns 11 Colony Place, Meriden, where the city placed four liens on his property: one anti-blight lien and three property maintenance liens.
- The anti-blight lien was levied in November 2005 under the anti-blight ordinance and § 7-148aa; the maintenance liens were placed November 2009, January 2010, and September 2011 under § 49-73b.
- Rutka filed an application on March 6, 2012 to discharge or reduce the four liens; a four-day hearing occurred in 2012.
- The trial court discharged the January 20, 2010 maintenance lien for not being filed within 30 days under § 49-73b and sustained the other two maintenance liens; it dismissed the anti-blight lien for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
- The court later denied discharge of the anti-blight lien on jurisdictional grounds, but the appellate court reversed in part, holding the court had jurisdiction under § 7-148aa to consider discharging the anti-blight lien as a potential property tax lien and remanded for further proceedings on that issue.
- The court noted the four liens were properly characterized as three maintenance liens and one anti-blight lien, and that the anti-blight lien could be reviewed under § 7-148aa, with due-process-related claims regarding evidence being deemed abandoned on inadequate briefing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Discharge of two maintenance liens under § 49-73b | Rutka argues two maintenance liens should be discharged. | Meriden shows probable cause to sustain the liens; the plaintiff bears clear-and-convincing burden to invalidate. | Affirmed as to the two maintenance liens. |
| Discharge of the 2005 anti-blight lien | Rutka argues court can discharge anti-blight lien under statute. | § 49-73b does not govern anti-blight liens; court lacks jurisdiction. | Court has subject matter jurisdiction under § 7-148aa to treat anti-blight lien as a potential property tax lien; remand for merits. |
| Misnomer and statutory framing of the claims | Form labeled four liens as mechanics’ liens; misnomer prejudices defendant. | Misnomer not prejudicial; proper statutory path exists. | No prejudice; proceed under § 7-148aa; remand for merits under that statute. |
| Due process/evidence issues and briefing shortcomings | Rutka claims denial of witness and hearsay issues. | Claims are inadequately briefed and thus reviewable only to limited extent. | Claims abandoned due to inadequate briefing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Newtown Associates v. Northeast Structures, Inc., 15 Conn. App. 633 (1988) (probable cause standard for discharging municipal liens)
- New Image Contractors, LLC v. Village at Mariner’s Point Ltd. Partnership, 86 Conn. App. 692 (2004) (burden to prove invalidity by clear and convincing evidence)
- 36 DeForest Avenue, LLC v. Creadore, 99 Conn. App. 690 (2007) (probable cause standard in lien discharge cases)
- Amodio v. Amodio, 247 Conn. 724 (1999) (distinction between subject matter jurisdiction and statutory authority)
- Southern New England Telephone Co. v. Dept. of Public Utility Control, 261 Conn. 1 (2002) (concepts of jurisdiction and statutory interpretation)
- Millbrook Owners Assn., Inc. v. Hamilton Standard, 257 Conn. 1 (2001) (policy favoring merits over technicalities; liberally construe jurisdiction)
- Stepney Pond Estates, Ltd. v. Monroe, 260 Conn. 406 (2002) (presumption in favor of jurisdiction)
- Lost Trail, LLC v. Weston, 140 Conn. App. 136 (2013) (plenary review of jurisdictional dismissals)
- 98 Lords Highway, LLC v. One Hundred Lords Highway, LLC, 138 Conn. App. 776 (2012) (statutory interpretation and jurisdictional issues)