Silver v. Holtman
90 A.3d 203
Conn. App. Ct.2014Background
- Defendants Holtman, Birmingham, and Bailey appeal from a writ of mandamus and declaratory judgment favoring plaintiff Charles S. Silver over recording an affidavit of facts under 47-12a.
- On July 20, 2005 Silver executed an affidavit relating to title in East Granby; Barrante filed it for recording on July 28, 2005; the town clerk initially stamped it for recording and collected the fee.
- Town Attorney Holtman advised Birmingham not to record the affidavit, claiming it was not a document required or authorized by law and that it would impede taxes; Birmingham returned the affidavit after removing volume/page marks.
- Plaintiff, trustee of the P.A.T. Trust (record owner of 6 Herman Drive), alleged the affidavit complied with 47-12a and that Holtman and Birmingham unlawfully removed it from the land records.
- Judge Domnarski granted partial summary judgment and issued a writ of mandamus ordering recording, concluding the affidavit complied with 47-12a and that 7-24 did not require naming the current owner on the affidavit.
- Judge Vacchelli later granted a declaratory judgment for plaintiff on count two, adopting the law-of-the-case approach from Judge Domnarski, while counts three and four favored defendants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the affidavit complies with 47-12a so it must be recorded | Silver; complies with 47-12a and must be recorded | Holtman/Birmingham; does not comply with 47-12a | Yes; affidavit complies and must be recorded |
| Whether 7-24(d) requires listing the present owner on the affidavit | 7-24(d) governs clerk’s duties, not ownership details | 7-24(d) requires identification of sufficient parties and ownership | 7-24(d) does not require naming the current owner; recording duty remains |
| Whether the plaintiffs unclean-hands defense precludes mandamus | Not applicable to mandamus; statute-based recording obligation | Plaintiff acted with improper motive to avoid taxes | Unclean hands not applicable to mandamus in this context |
| Whether a writ of mandamus was proper given the statutory framework | Mandamus appropriate to compel recording under 47-12a and 7-24 | Discretionary equitable relief should not issue given conduct history | Writ of mandamus proper; clerk must record the affidavit |
Key Cases Cited
- Miles v. Foley, 253 Conn. 381 (2000) (mandamus standard: mandatory duty, clear right, no other remedy)
- McCue v. Birmingham, 88 Conn. App. 630 (2005) (discussed; not controlling for current issues—different documents; res judicata concerns)
- Jalowiec Realty Associates, L.P. v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 278 Conn. 408 (2006) (equitable considerations in mandamus; clean-hands guidance)
- Emigrant Mortgage Co. v. D’Agostino, 94 Conn. App. 793 (2006) (clean-hands doctrine in equitable relief contexts)
- Battersby v. Battersby, 218 Conn. 467 (1991) (statutory construction principle: avoid superfluous terms; interpret as whole)
- Housatonic Railroad Co. v. Commissioner of Revenue Services, 301 Conn. 268 (2011) (statutory construction principles; reading schemes together)
- Marchesi v. Board of Selectmen, 309 Conn. 608 (2013) (textual plain meaning; avoid extratextual evidence when plain)
- Miles v. Foley, 253 Conn. 381 (2000) (mandamus criteria reiterated)