Grossomanides v. Town of Wethersfield, 12048
Decision Date | 01 February 1994 |
Docket Number | No. 12048,12048 |
Citation | 33 Conn.App. 511,636 A.2d 867 |
Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
Parties | Stephen GROSSOMANIDES et al. v. TOWN OF WETHERSFIELD. |
Lisa A. Zaccardelli, for appellant (substitute plaintiff).
Karen P. Blado, with whom, on the brief, was Robert M. Decrescenzo, for appellee (defendant).
Before DUPONT, C.J., and EDWARD Y. O'CONNELL and LAVERY, JJ.
The plaintiff John Anagnos 1 appeals from the judgment of the trial court upholding the decision of the board of tax review for the town of Wethersfield regarding the plaintiff's tax assessment. The plaintiff is the owner of real property at 912 Silas Deane Highway in Wethersfield, on which stands a building that he leases out as commercial office space. Pursuant to its decennial revaluation, the town of Wethersfield valued the property at $3,001,500 as of October 1, 1989. At the plaintiff's request, the board of tax review reviewed the assessment and reduced it to $2,892,000. The plaintiff then appealed to the trial court, which upheld the board's determination. The plaintiff now appeals that judgment to this court, claiming that the trial court improperly concluded that the report of the plaintiff's appraiser was irrelevant to the issue of the property's fair market value.
The trial court stated in its memorandum of decision that "[t]he plaintiff['s] expert appraisal report is given no weight because it valued the lease fee of the subject property and is therefore irrelevant to the issue of the fair market value for purposes of a municipal tax appeal." The relevancy of evidence is determined on a case by case basis within the discretion of the trial court. The general rule is that evidence is relevant if it has a tendency "to establish a fact in issue or to corroborate other direct evidence in the case." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Lombardi v. Groton, 26 Conn.App. 157, 163, 599 A.2d 388 (1991), cert. denied, 221 Conn. 908, 600 A.2d 1361 (1992), quoting Federated Department Stores, Inc. v. Board of Tax Review, 162 Conn. 77, 82, 291 A.2d 715 (1971); State v. Willis, 221 Conn. 518, 522, 605 A.2d 1359 (1992). This court requires a clear showing of abuse of discretion to set aside findings on evidentiary matters. Lombardi v. Groton, supra.
The trial court is vested with broad discretion in municipal tax appeals in determining fair market value, and "has the right to accept so much of the expert testimony and the recognized appraisal methods which are employed as it finds applicable." John F. Epina Realty, Inc. v. Space Realty, Inc., 194 Conn. 71, 84, 480 A.2d 499 (1984). "The exercise of this right would be reviewable only if it were apparent that the [trial court] misapplied or overlooked, or gave a wrong or improper effect to, any testimony or consideration which it [has a] duty to regard...." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., quoting Federated Department Stores, Inc. v. Board of Tax Review, supra, 162 Conn. at 86, 291 A.2d 715.
Upon our review of the appraisal report of the plaintiff's appraiser, we conclude that the trial court's determination that the report was "irrelevant" and should be given no weight was improper. Although the appraiser's use of the term "lease fee title" was unusual and, perhaps, semantically misleading, the report clearly defined that term as meaning nothing more than "ownership of the land, improvements, and all of the rights normally acquired by ownership." Semantics aside, there is no difference between the definition of "lease fee title" as used in the report and defined therein and the definition of a fee simple estate, which the report defined as "[a]bsolute ownership unencumbered by any other interest or estate; subject only to the limitations of eminent domain, escheat, police power, and taxation." Both the plaintiff's and the defendant's appraisers 2 correctly valued the same ownership interest in the subject property. See Second Stone Ridge Cooperative Corp. v. Bridgeport, 220 Conn. 335, 342-44, 597 A.2d 326 (1991).
Contrary to the defendant's assertions, the appraisal report of the plaintiff's expert did not violate General Statutes § 12-63b(b) 3 by using the value of the actual leases of the office building to determine the net operating income of the subject property. Although he did perform a calculation using the actual income from existing leases, he did not use that calculation in reaching his ultimate determination of net operating income. In fact, the appraiser used a net operating income figure based on "comparable rentals" in calculating the value of the property according to the "income approach," which is exactly what he should have done. 4
The plaintiff's appeal from the board's decision required the trial court to perform a double function. Gorin's, Inc. v. Board of Tax Review, 178 Conn. 606, 608, 424 A.2d 282 (1979). Initially, it was the court's duty to determine whether "the action of the board will result in the payment of an unjust and, therefore, illegal tax...." Id. If such a finding was made, the court could then reduce the assessment in accordance with its own determination of the value of the property made on the basis of the evidence produced at trial. Stamford Apartments Co. v. Stamford, 203 Conn. 586, 588, 525 A.2d 1327 (1987); Gorin's, Inc. v. Board of Tax Review, supra, 178 Conn. at 608, 424 A.2d 282. "The burden, in the first instance, is upon the plaintiff to show that he has, in fact, been aggrieved by the action of the board in that his property has been overassessed." Gorin's, Inc. v. Board of Tax Review, supra.
In this case, the evidence that the plaintiff produced to satisfy his burden of showing aggrievement consisted primarily of the report and the testimony of his expert appraiser. The trial court improperly declared the plaintiff's appraisal report as irrelevant, and therefore gave it no weight. The trial court's memorandum of decision also reveals that in evaluating the testimony of the witnesses, the court gave "greater weight to the testimony of the defendant's expert witness ... because he correctly applied the income and sales comparison approaches to value to determine the fair market value for the fee simple estate of the subject property on October 1, 1989."
This paragraph of the memorandum of decision implies that the trial court found that the plaintiff's appraiser had incorrectly applied those methods to determine the property's fair market value, and that the court valued the testimony of the defendant's appraisers over that of the plaintiff's appraiser, not because...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Wheelabrator Bridgeport, L.P. v. City of Bridgeport
...the subject property's value." [Emphasis omitted.] ), cert. denied, 265 Conn. 901, 829 A.2d 419 (2003) ; Grossomanides v. Wethersfield, 33 Conn.App. 511, 513–16, 636 A.2d 867 (1994) (reversing decision of trial court because it improperly deemed report of plaintiff's appraiser to be "irrele......
-
Kohl's Dep't Stores, Inc. v. Town of Rocky Hill
...951 (2008).8 We have stated that it is harmful for a court to discount evidence bearing on value. See Grossomanides v. Wethersfield , 33 Conn. App. 511, 515–17, 636 A.2d 867 (1994). ...
-
Walgreen Eastern Company, Inc. v. Town of West Hartford
... ... N.C ... 2013) ... [ 7 ] See also Grossomanides v ... Wethersfield , 33 Conn.App. 511, 513-14, 636 A.2d 867 ... (1994) (" [s]emantics ... ...
-
Tyler's Cove Ass'n, Inc. v. Town of Middlebury
...relief as is appropriate." Gorin's, Inc. v. Board of Tax Review, 178 Conn. 606, 608, 424 A.2d 282 (1979); Grossomanides v. Wethersfield, 33 Conn.App. 511, 515, 636 A.2d 867 (1994). Some additional facts are necessary for the resolution of this issue on appeal. As a result of the revaluation......