Sadloski v. Town of Manchester
Decision Date | 07 December 1993 |
Docket Number | No. 14748,14748 |
Citation | 228 Conn. 79,634 A.2d 888 |
Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
Parties | Elizabeth SADLOSKI et al. v. TOWN OF MANCHESTER et al. |
Kathleen Eldergill, Manchester, for appellant (plaintiff Virginia Celinski).
William J. Shea, Asst. Town Atty., for appellee (named defendant).
Karen P. Blado, with whom was Ann E. Lynch, Hartford, for the appellees (defendants The Mall at Buckland Hills Partnership and Homart Manchester Inv. Co.).
Before PETERS, C.J., and BORDEN, NORCOTT, KATZ and PALMER, JJ.
The dispositive issue in this appeal is whether a trial court has subject matter jurisdiction to determine the merits of a taxpayer action without first deciding whether the taxpayer has standing to pursue such a claim. A number of taxpayers 1 of the town of Manchester brought this action challenging the enforceability of a tax assessment agreement between the named defendant, the town of Manchester, and the defendant The Mall at Buckland Hills Partnership. The defendant Homart Manchester Investment Company is an investor in The Mall at Buckland Hills Partnership. The plaintiffs alleged that the agreement violated the provisions of General Statutes § 12-65b 2 and public policy by depriving them of their constitutional rights to equal protection. 3 The trial court, O'Neill, J., dismissed the action as to all the plaintiffs except Virginia Celinski. 4 The trial court, Aurigemma, J., thereafter granted the defendants' motion for judgment of dismissal with respect to Celinski (hereinafter the plaintiff). The plaintiff appealed from the judgment of the trial court to the Appellate Court, and we transferred the appeal to this court pursuant to Practice Book § 4023 and General Statutes § 51-199(c). We remand for further proceedings.
The trial court dismissed the plaintiff's cause of action for failure to have made out a prima facie case pursuant to Practice Book § 302. 5 The court held: "Even if the court were to find that the plaintiff submitted sufficient evidence to prove her own standing, the plaintiff must make out a prima facie case with respect to her substantive claims in order to defeat a Motion for Judgment." (Emphasis in original.) Considering the merits of the plaintiff's substantive claims, the court ruled that she had failed to make out a prima facie case of the invalidity of the tax assessment agreement.
In her appeal to this court, the plaintiff urges reversal of the trial court's substantive conclusion. The defendants, however, have raised the plaintiff's failure to prove her standing as an alternative ground for sustaining the trial court's judgment of dismissal. We agree with the defendants that, without a finding with respect to the plaintiff's standing, the trial court had no authority to consider the plaintiff's case on its merits. We disagree, however, that the present record is sufficient for us to determine whether the plaintiff had standing, and we therefore cannot sustain the judgment of dismissal.
The plaintiff's status as a taxpayer does not automatically give her standing to challenge alleged improprieties in the conduct of the defendant town. Alarm Applications Co. v. Simsbury Volunteer Fire Co., 179 Conn. 541, 549, 427 A.2d 822 (1980); Bell v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 174 Conn. 493, 497-98, 391 A.2d 154 (1978); Belford v. New Haven, 170 Conn. 46, 52-53, 364 A.2d 194 (1975); Gannon v. Sanders, 157 Conn. 1, 6-9, 244 A.2d 397 (1968); Truesdale v. Greenwich, 116 Conn. 426, 430-32, 165 A. 201 (1933). The plaintiff must also "allege and demonstrate that the allegedly improper municipal conduct cause[d her] to suffer some pecuniary or other great injury." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Alarm Applications Co. v. Simsbury Volunteer Fire Co., supra; Belford v. New Haven, supra, 170 Conn. at 53, 364 A.2d 194; Atwood v. Regional School District No. 15, 169 Conn. 613, 617, 363 A.2d 1038 (1975); Bassett v. Desmond, 140 Conn. 426, 430, 101 A.2d 294 (1953); see 18 E. McQuillin, Municipal Corporations (3d Ed.Rev.1993) §§ 52.12 through 52.14, 52.24. It is not enough for the plaintiff to show that her tax dollars have contributed to the challenged project; Bell v. Planning & Zoning Commission, supra, 174 Conn. at 498, 391 A.2d 154; Gannon v. Sanders, supra, 157 Conn. at 7, 244 A.2d 397; the plaintiff must prove that the project has directly or indirectly increased her taxes; Atwood v. Regional School District No. 15, supra, 169 Conn. at 617, 363 A.2d 1038; or, in some other fashion, caused her irreparable injury in her capacity as a taxpayer. Bassett v. Desmond, supra; Cassidy v. Waterbury, 130 Conn. 237, 245, 33 A.2d 142 (1943).
The parties cannot waive a showing that the plaintiff has standing because, in the absence of standing, the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to determine the merits of the case. Tomlinson v. Board of Education, 226 Conn. 704, 717-18, 629 A.2d 333 (1993); Stroiney v. Crescent Lake Tax District, 205 Conn. 290, 294, 533 A.2d 208 (1987); Belford v. New Haven, supra, 170 Conn. at 52-53, 364 A.2d 194. (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Unisys Corp. v. Department of Labor, 220 Conn. 689, 693, 600 A.2d 1019 (1991).
A possible absence of subject matter jurisdiction must be addressed and decided whenever the issue is raised. The parties cannot confer subject matter jurisdiction on the court, either by waiver or by consent. Serrani v. Board of Ethics, 225 Conn. 305, 308, 622 A.2d 1009 (1993); In re Judicial Inquiry No. 85-01, 221 Conn. 625, 629, 605 A.2d 545 (1992); Castro v. Viera, 207 Conn. 420, 429-30, 541 A.2d 1216 (1988); Practice Book §§ 143, 145. The trial court in this case should not have considered the merits of the plaintiff's case without having first made a finding about whether she had standing and, consequently, whether the court had subject matter jurisdiction.
We cannot supply the finding that the trial court failed to make. Although the plaintiff presented her own testimony and that of an expert witness to establish that her property taxes had increased subsequent to the implementation of the tax assessment agreement, the defendants denied that there was a causal relationship between these two events and represented to the court that they were prepared to offer evidence on that issue. Each of the parties bears some responsibility for the fact that the court improperly rendered a judgment without hearing all the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Williams v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities
...forged in hot controversy, with each view fairly and vigorously represented." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Sadloski v. Manchester, 228 Conn. 79, 84, 634 A.2d 888 An agency has an institutional interest in decisions that affect its decision-making ability. See Board of Pardons v. Free......
-
Gay and Lesbian Law Students Ass'n at University of Connecticut School of Law v. Board of Trustees, University of Connecticut
...... Orsi v. Senatore, 230 Conn. 459, 470, 645 A.2d 986 (1994); Sadloski v. Manchester, 228 Conn. 79, 83-85, 634 A.2d 888 (1993). . 9 The ... school in a regional school district to the board of selectmen or town board of finance, as the case may be, of the town wherein the student ......
-
West Farms Mall, LLC v. West Hartford, 17464.
...forged in hot controversy, with each view fairly and vigorously represented." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Sadloski v. Manchester, 228 Conn. 79, 84, 634 A.2d 888 (1993), on appeal after remand, 235 Conn. 637, 668 A.2d 1314 (1995). "[A] trial court's determination that it lacks subjec......
-
Windham Taxpayers Ass'n v. Board of Selectmen of Town of Windham
..."A possible absence of subject matter jurisdiction must be addressed and decided whenever the issue is raised." Sadloski v. Manchester, 228 Conn. 79, 84, 634 A.2d 888 (1993). A We first determine whether this court has jurisdiction to hear the defendants' appeal from the trial court. "It is......