345 Conn. 76
Conn.2022Background
- Judge Ecker (joined by Judge McDonald as to parts I–II) filed a concurring opinion in Seramonte Associates, LLC v. Hamden addressing the meaning of the verb "submit" in Conn. Gen. Stat. § 12-63c(a).
- § 12-63c(a) requires owners of income-producing real property to "annually submit to the assessor not later than the first day of June" specified rental and expense information; § 12-63c(d) imposes a 10% assessed-value penalty for failure to "submit" as required.
- The dispute: whether "submit" is ambiguous and, if so, whether it means (a) sending/mailed (timely postmark) or (b) delivery/receipt by the assessor by June 1.
- Ecker J. concludes the word is ambiguous on its face (lexical, intra‑statutory, and cross‑statutory ambiguity), so interpreters should employ canons and legislative history rather than declare an unambiguous meaning.
- Applying canons (including strict construction of penalty provisions) and legislative history showing the statute was moved to a June 1 deadline to aid assessors, he adopts a delivery/receipt interpretation and concurs in affirming the trial court’s judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does "submit" in Conn. Gen. Stat. § 12-63c(a) mean "sent/postmarked by" the June 1 deadline or "delivered/received by" the assessor by that date? | "Submit" means to send; timely mailing/postmark before June 1 satisfies the statutory deadline. | "Submit" requires the assessor actually receive the information by June 1; delivery/receipt is required to meet the deadline. | The term is ambiguous; applying canons and legislative history, court adopts a delivery/receipt (delivery‑based) deadline and affirms the penalty. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ledyard v. WMS Gaming, Inc., 338 Conn. 687 (Conn. 2021) (standard for when statutory language is ambiguous)
- State v. Felix R., 319 Conn. 1 (Conn. 2015) (definition of ambiguity for statutory construction)
- In re Youhoing, [citation="843 F. App'x 248"] (11th Cir. 2021) ("submit" held to mean sent for compliance with a deadline)
- In re Lambirth, 5 Cal. App. 5th 915 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016) ("submit" construed to mean sending rather than receipt)
- Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Bradshaw, 450 F. Supp. 3d 1258 (W.D. Okla. 2020) (distinguishing "submitted" and "received")
- United States v. Yermian, 468 U.S. 63 (U.S. 1984) (discussion of interpretive certainty and judicial restraint)
- Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Acker, 361 U.S. 87 (U.S. 1959) (penal/tax statutes construed strictly)