Alexson v. Foss

• Decision Date: 10 January 2006
• Docket Number: No. 17365.,17365.
• Citation: 887 A.2d 872,276 Conn. 599
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: William ALEXSON et al. v. Janet FOSS et al.

887 A.2d 872

276 Conn. 599

William ALEXSON et al. v. Janet FOSS et al.

No. 17365.

Supreme Court of Connecticut.

Argued October 24, 2005.

Decided January 10, 2006.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Steve P. Kulas, with whom was Prescott W. May, Seymour, for the appellant (named plaintiff).

William A. Conti, Torrington, with whom, on the brief, was Dina M. Menchetti, for the appellees (defendants).

BORDEN, NORCOTT, KATZ, VERTEFEUILLE and ZARELLA, Js.

NORCOTT, J.

The principal issue in this appeal is whether the parties' failure to comply with General Statutes § 47-28¹ by recording in the town clerk's office their agreement to arbitrate a land dispute, as well as the subsequent arbitration award, deprived the arbitrator, and subsequently the trial court, of subject matter jurisdiction over this case. The named plaintiff, William Alexson, appealed² from the judgment of the trial court confirming an arbitration award that resolved a dispute between himself and Bertha Alexson and multiple defendants³ over ownership interests in a parcel of land that is situated in Bethlehem and Woodbury. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the trial court improperly denied the Alexsons' application to vacate the award and granted the defendants' motion to confirm the award because: (1) neither the arbitrator nor the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction under § 47-28; and (2) the arbitrator's award was void under General Statutes § 52-418(a)⁴ because the arbitrator was partial, and the award was both incomplete and in manifest disregard of the law. We disagree with the plaintiff's claims and, accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The record reveals the following undisputed facts and procedural history. In November, 1999, the defendants brought an action to quiet title against the Alexsons seeking to determine the ownership interests in a 4.3 acre parcel of land that was located in Bethlehem and Woodbury. In September, 2002, the parties settled that action by entering into an arbitration agreement that appointed Attorney Franklin Pilicy to hear evidence and decide finally all issues in the case. Subsequently, by letter dated January 5, 2004, the parties amended the submission to include an adjacent 2.2 acre parcel of land. After hearing five days of testimony, receiving exhibits and walking the property, the arbitrator concluded in an award issued in May, 2004, that the defendants had proven by a preponderance of the evidence that they were the record title owners of the 4.3 acre parcel, and that the Alexsons did not prove by clear and positive proof that they had adversely possessed the 4.3 acre parcel. With respect to the 2.2 acre parcel, the arbitrator concluded that neither party had proven record title ownership, but that the Alexsons had demonstrated by clear and positive proof that they were the exclusive owners of that parcel by adverse possession. The arbitrator ordered the defendants to "cause to be prepared a [m]ylar [m]ap suitable for recording on the land records of Bethlehem and Woodbury to clearly show the disputed land 4.3 [acre] parcel now owned by the [defendants] and the [2.2 acre parcel] now owned by the [Alexsons]. The [m]ap should contain the caption for this case, reference the [a]greement for [a]rbitration and this [a]rbitrator's award."

Thereafter, the Alexsons filed an application to vacate the arbitration award. The defendants then objected to the application, and filed their own motion to confirm the award. At the hearing before the trial court, the Alexsons argued that the arbitrator had not been impartial. They also argued that the arbitrator had departed from the terms of the submission by dividing the property. The trial court rejected their claims of partiality as attempts to relitigate the merits of the case, and concluded that the award both conformed to the unrestricted submission and was not in manifest disregard of the law. Accordingly, the trial court denied the Alexsons' application to vacate the award and granted the defendants' motion to confirm the award, and rendered judgment accordingly. This appeal followed.

I WHETHER THE PARTIES' FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH § 47-28 DEPRIVED THE ARBITRATOR AND THE TRIAL COURT OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

We begin with a threshold matter, namely, the plaintiff's claim that neither the arbitrator nor the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction over the dispute because of the parties' failure to comply with the provisions of § 47-28 that require arbitration agreements and awards, in order to affect an interest in land, to be executed with the same formality as a deed, to be written under the hand and seal of the arbitrator, and to be recorded in the appropriate town clerk's office. The plaintiff contends that the agreement is a nullity and does not comply with § 47-28 because it was not executed with the formalities of a deed, and the arbitrator merely signed the award rather than executing it under hand and seal. The plaintiff also claims that the award improperly directed the filing of a mylar map with the town clerk, rather than the award itself.

The defendants contend in response that compliance with § 47-28 is not subject matter jurisdictional with respect to the present case, but rather addresses the enforceability of the award against third parties. The defendants also argue that the signatures of the Alexsons themselves were not necessary because they assented to the agreement through their participation in the process, and it was signed by the their attorney. The defendants also contend that the plaintiff waived his claims with respect to the hand and seal requirements by not raising them in the trial court and inadequately briefing them on appeal.

We note at the outset that the plaintiff failed to raise his § 47-28 claims before the trial court. Although this ordinarily would preclude us from reaching these claims, questions of subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time, including on appeal. See, e.g., Peters v. Dept. of Social Services, 273 Conn. 434, 441-42, 870 A.2d 448 (2005); see also Bennett v. Meader, 208 Conn. 352, 364, 545 A.2d 553 (1988) ("[t]he authority of the arbitrator is a subject matter jurisdiction issue, and as such it may be challenged at any time prior to a final court judgment"). "[B]ecause [a] determination regarding a trial court's subject matter jurisdiction is a question of law, our review is plenary." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Peters v. Dept. of Social Services, supra, at 441, 870 A.2d 448.

In the present case, the plaintiff's contentions require us to determine whether compliance with § 47-28 implicates the subject matter jurisdiction of the arbitrator and the trial court that is asked to confirm the arbitrator's award. This poses "an issue of statutory construction over which our review is plenary. . . . `It is well settled that in construing statutes, [o]ur fundamental objective is to ascertain and give effect to the apparent intent of the legislature' . . . and that `[t]he meaning of a statute shall, in the first instance, be ascertained from the text of the statute itself and its relationship to other statutes. If, after examining such text and considering such relationship, the meaning of such text is plain and unambiguous and does not yield absurd or unworkable results, extratextual evidence of the meaning of the statute shall not be considered.' General Statutes § 1-2z." (Citations omitted.) Wallingford v. Werbiski, 274 Conn. 483, 489, 877 A.2d 749 (2005).

Starting, as we must, with the language of the statute, § 47-28 provides: "No award of arbitrators, made since May 20, 1841, purporting to decide the title to real estate, shall be admissible as evidence thereof, unless the submission of the parties to such arbitration is executed, attested and acknowledged as deeds of lands, nor unless such award is in writing and under the hands and seals of the arbitrators; and such submission and award shall not be effectual against any persons but the parties to the same and their heirs, unless recorded by the town clerk of the town where such estate is situated." (Emphasis added.)

"The test to determine ambiguity is whether the statute, when read in context, is susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation." Carmel Hollow Associates Ltd. Partnership v. Bethlehem, 269 Conn. 120, 134 n. 19, 848 A.2d 451 (2004). The plaintiff's contention that the award is a nullity absent compliance with the statutory terms is a reasonable reading of the text of § 47-28, particularly given the arguably contradictory language in the two separate clauses of the statute. The language in § 47-28 referring to the enforceability of the award against the "parties to the same and their heirs" conceivably could apply only to the discrete situation of an unrecorded submission and award, and not save a submission or award not executed in accordance with General Statutes § 47-5,⁵ which governs the conveyance of lands. The defendants' reading of the statute, however, as having no impact on the subject matter jurisdiction of the arbitrator also is reasonable, particularly given the statute's textual distinction between the award merely as admissible evidence of the title to land, and its effectiveness against the parties to a land dispute. Accordingly, we conclude that this statute is ambiguous and, therefore, we may resort to extratextual evidence in determining its meaning.

We next turn to an examination of the legislative genealogy and history of § 47-28. Section 47-28 has existed without substantive change since its original enactment in 1841 as chapter 31, §§ 1 through 3 of the 1841 Public Acts.⁶ Unfortunately, there is no printed legislative history from that time in our state's history to provide a source of insight into the meaning of the statute. Accordingly, we construe § 47-28 in light of other public policy...