Wilton Campus 1691, LLC. v. Wilton
SC20388 and
| Conn. | Nov 2, 2021Background
- Plaintiffs (Wilton Campus 1691, Wilton River Park 1688, Wilton River Park North) challenged ten percent penalties imposed under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 12-63c(d) for failing to submit required property information.
- The Wilton assessor imposed the § 12-63c(d) penalties after signing the 2014 grand list — i.e., the filing was delayed/omitted at the time the grand list was signed.
- The assessor later sought to correct the grand list to add the penalties under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 12-60 (clerical corrections).
- The Appellate Court reversed the trial court and ordered that the plaintiffs’ tax appeals be sustained, concluding the assessor’s deliberate delay made the omission substantive, not clerical, so § 12-60 did not permit retroactive correction.
- Chief Justice Robinson (concurring in part and dissenting in part) agrees with the majority that the penalties qualify as assessments under § 12-55(b) but disagrees with Part II: he argues the assessor’s delayed filing was a clerical/ministerial error correctable under § 12-60 and would reverse the Appellate Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an assessor’s untimely addition of § 12-63c(d) penalties is a clerical error under § 12-60 | The omission was deliberate/time-based and therefore an error of substance; § 12-60 does not authorize correction | The omission was a ministerial/clerical filing error (timing only) and may be corrected under § 12-60 even after signing the grand list | Majority/Appellate Court: not clerical — correction not allowed. Robinson (dissent in part): clerical — correction allowed under § 12-60; would reverse Appellate Court. |
Key Cases Cited
- Reconstruction Finance Corp. v. Naugatuck, 136 Conn. 29 (court treated error as involving substance/extent of assessment)
- National CSS, Inc. v. Stamford, 195 Conn. 587 (deliberate/misapplied assessment held an error of substance)
- Brown v. Clark, 81 Conn. 562 (filing mistakes producing inconsistency with rendered judgment are clerical)
- Blake v. Blake, 211 Conn. 485 (phrasing corrections not affecting judgment substance are clerical)
- Morici v. Jarvie, 137 Conn. 97 (modifying judgment contents is substantive)
- Goldreyer v. Cronan, 76 Conn. 113 (failure to record interest as rendered was error of substance)