Opinion
No. CV-06-4021542
March 2, 2009
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
This is an appeal from the decision of the City of West Haven Tax Assessor and Board of Review brought pursuant to General Statutes §§ 12-117a and 12-119. The plaintiffs, Linda and Alex Ungerleider, are the property owners of 12 Baldwin Street in West Haven. The assessor of the city of West Haven determined the full value of the property to be $643,170.00 as of October 1, 2005, with an assessed value of seventy percent of its true and actual value. The court heard evidence on February 11, 2009. The plaintiffs argue that the valuation is grossly excessive, disproportionate and unlawful and that the property was wrongfully assessed.
There are well settled legal principles underlying a General Statutes § 12-117a tax appeal. "In § 12-117a tax appeals, the trial court tries the matter de novo and the ultimate question is the ascertainment of the true and actual value of the [taxpayer's] property . . . At the de novo proceeding, the taxpayer bears the burden of establishing that the assessor has overassessed its property . . . Once the taxpayer has demonstrated aggrievement by proving that its property was overassessed the trial court [will] then undertake a further inquiry to determine the amount of the reassessment that would be just . . . The trier of fact must arrive at [its] own conclusions as to the value of [the taxpayer's property] by weighing the opinion of the appraisers, the claims of the parties in light of all the circumstances in evidence bearing on value, and his own general knowledge of the elements going to establish value . . ." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Middletown, 77 Conn.App. 21, 26, 822 A.2d 330, cert. denied, 265 Conn. 901, 829 A.2d 419 (2003), quoting United Technologies Corp. v. East Windsor, 262 Conn. 11, 22-23, 807 A.2d 955 (2002).
"[T]he law contemplates that a wide discretion is to be accorded to assessors. An assessor's valuation should control for taxation purposes unless it is discriminatory or unreasonable." (Citations omitted.) Executive Square Limited Partnership v. Board of Tax Review, CT Page 4382 11 Conn.App. 566, 569-70, 528 A.2d 409 (1987). "[T]he taxpayer bears the burden of establishing that the assessor has overassessed its property . . . The trier of fact must arrive at [her] own conclusion as to the value of [the taxpayer's property] by weighing the opinion of the appraisers, the claims of the parties in light of all the circumstances in evidence bearing on value, and [her] own general knowledge of the elements going to establish value." (Citations omitted.) Ireland v. Wethersfield, 242 Conn. 550, 556-57, 698 A2d 888 (1997). "If the trial court finds that the taxpayer fails to meet his burden, because, for example, the court finds unpersuasive the method of valuation espoused by the taxpayer's appraiser, the trial court may render judgment for the town on that basis alone . . ." Id., 557-58.
The plaintiffs, who represented themselves, presented the testimony of Linda Ungerleider as to the fair market value of the property. The thrust of plaintiff's testimony was that in the years prior to the reevaluation of 2005, their taxes had risen approximately $1,000. As a result of the revaluation, their taxes rose approximately $10,000. The plaintiff also testified as to a decrease in taxes of a condominium complex that she described as a "luxury" condominium. The plaintiff testified that it is "not fair for the town to put the tax burden on the people with a view."
Where a layman appears pro se, the court follows a liberal policy and carefully considers the party's claims as far as they are fairly presented upon the record to ensure that no injustice has been done under the law. While the self-represented parry is afforded this latitude, however, the court is equally cognizant that the right of self-representation provides no attendant license not to comply with relevant rules of procedure and substantive law. See, Goldstone v. Fisher, 200 Conn. 197 (1986); New Haven v. Bonner, 272 Conn. 289 (2004).
The court heard evidence from an appraiser for the city, Charles Liberti (hereinafter, "Liberti"). Liberti used the direct sale value approach, which is commonly known as the comparables method of valuation. According to Liberti, the subject property is a 2,245 square foot 79-year-old home in good condition with modern updates that sits on a .17-acre parcel that has a direct waterfront view. Using five other waterfront properties for his comparables, Liberti determined the fair market value of the plaintiffs' property to be $704,000.00. In her cross-examination of Liberti, Linda Ungerleider sought to establish that a downward adjustment should be made for two reasons: a sewer line or pipe that ran under her home and a neighboring property that was in poor physical condition. No evidence, however, was offered on either of these claimed bases. Liberti did opine that a downward adjustment was not required based on the state of the neighboring parcel due to the fact that the house is small, well set back and a buyer desiring a waterfront view would not be deterred from a purchase. As to the sewer line, Liberti testified that he was not aware of any condition existing on plaintiffs' property and no such condition was ever made known to him.
The court concludes that the plaintiffs have not met their initial burden of showing that the property is substantially overvalued, so that injustice will result if the city's October 1, 2005 appraisal is allowed to stand. Based on the court's review of the testimony and exhibits supporting each party's opinion, the court finds that the city's value is not excessive, disproportionate or unlawful. The record is devoid of any evidence that would support such a finding. Our courts have recognized that the taxpayer always has a difficult burden to prove aggrievement. Grey v. Board of Tax Review, City of West Haven, 1993 WL 301334 (No. CV-92-335742, 7/30/93, Lager, J.). Great deference is accorded to the judgment of the assessor. Connecticut Coke Co. v. New Haven, 169 Conn. 663, 668, 364 A.2d 178 (1975). Our courts have recognized that the location of property is an important feature for valuation purposes. This is even more true in cases involving direct waterfront property. See, e.g., Sacheti v. Town of Westbrook, No. CV-07-4007482, Middlesex Superior Court, 9/11/08, Aronson, JTR; Van Winkle v. Stonington, No. CV-03-05670701, New London Superior Court, 1/13/06, Jones, J.; Cornish v. New London, No. CV-569533, New London Superior Court, 12/14/04, Hurley, JTR. The court finds, by the more credible evidence, that the city's value of the subject property is not excessive, disproportionate or unlawful. The court finds for the defendant on count one.
In the second count, the plaintiff claims that wrongful assessment under General Statutes § 12-119. That statute provides, in pertinent part, that an owner may make application for relief to the Superior Court when "a tax laid on property was computed on an assessment which, under all the circumstances, was manifestly excessive and could not have been arrived at except by disregarding the provisions of the statutes for determining the valuation of such property." In Mead v. Greenwich, 131 Conn. 273, 275 (1944) our Supreme Court noted that the statute was designed to meet situations where a taxpayer alleges misfeasance or nonfeasance by the taxing authorities, or that the assessment was arbitrary or so excessive or discriminatory as in itself to show a disregard of duty. See also Connecticut Coke Co., supra, 668. The plaintiffs have failed to present any evidence in support of this claim.
The plaintiffs have not met their burden of proof on their two claims. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.