Opinion
No. CV06-4009236S
April 12, 2006
ORDER
The plaintiff on January 25, 2006, filed an application for a temporary injunction pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes § 52-471 to enjoin the defendant from conducting tax sales pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes § 12-157 on two properties located at 10 Ward Street and 14 Ward Street, Waterbury, CT. The sales were scheduled for January 26, 2006. No action was taken on the application. A hearing was ordered to be held on February 21, 2006 which was continued to April 11, 2006.
At the hearing on April 11, 2006, the plaintiff testified he is the record owner of 14 Ward Street and that his mother Elizabeth Young is the owner of 10 Ward Street. He, however manages the property for her and has authority to act on her behalf. Mr. Young further testified that no tax payments had been made on either property since 2003, and that this was due to his business setbacks.
The city presented evidence through Susan Rando, the delinquent tax manager for the City of Waterbury, that no taxes had been paid on 10 Ward Street since 1995, and. that the total amount of taxes owed on 10 Ward Street for the grand lists of 1995 through 2004 inclusive is $15,086.55 plus an additional $3,624.10 for sewer taxes. As for 14 Ward Street, the taxes are owed for the grand lists of 1998 through 2004. The last payment of $500 was made in 2003 and applied to the 1998 grand list taxes. The taxes due on 14 Ward Street are $15,164.59 plus $1,792.82 for Water and Sewer.
Both of these properties were put up for tax sale on January 26, 2006. No bids were received for 10 Ward Street and a sale was rescheduled for June 22, 2006. Fourteen Ward Street was sold for $19,780.17. This sale is pending subject to the six-month statutory redemption period.
The plaintiff is asking the court to issue a temporary injunction, declaring the January 26, 2006, sale of 14 Ward Street to be null and void and to issue a one-year injunction against the sale of either property so that some accommodation for payment of the taxes can be made with the City.
The purpose of a temporary injunction is to preserve the status quo until final determination of the parties' rights after a hearing on the merits. Clinton v. Middlesex Mutual Assurance Co., 37 Conn.App. 269, 270 (1995). The court, when considering a temporary injunction, must consider the following factors; a) irreparable and imminent injury, b) lack of an adequate remedy at law, c) likelihood of success on the merits, and d) the balancing of the equities favors granting the injunction.
The court, having considered the evidence in this case, denies the plaintiff's application for the following reasons. First, as to the property at 14 Ward Street, the property has already been sold and the court finds it has no authority to void the sale. Second, the plaintiff does have an adequate remedy at law. He can redeem the property. Third, the court finds it is unlikely the plaintiff will be successful on the merits because admittedly no taxes have been paid since 2003 and eight years of taxes are owed. Lastly the balancing of the equities does not favor granting the injunction because the City has the right to collect taxes and have been more than reasonable by waiting eight years to collect the taxes due by means of a tax sale.
As to the property at 10 Ward Street, the court finds the plaintiff has no standing to bring this action as he is not the record owner. Since this property was not sold, the plaintiff has the right to pay the taxes. The court finds it is unlikely he will prevail on the merits, and balancing the equities, the City has been more than reasonable in waiting ten years to collect the taxes due by means of a tax sale.
For the foregoing reasons, the plaintiff's application for a temporary injunction is denied.