HORSE of Connecticut, Inc. v. Washington
Decision Date | 20 November 2001 |
Docket Number | (SC 16313) |
Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
Parties | H.O.R.S.E. OF CONNECTICUT, INC. v. TOWN OF WASHINGTON |
Borden, Norcott, Katz, Palmer and Sullivan, JS.1 William C. Franklin, with whom, on the brief, was Denise M. Cloutier, for the appellant (defendant).
Jeffrey J. Tinley, with whom was Robert Nastri, Jr., for the appellee (plaintiff).
The plaintiff, H.O.R.S.E.2 of Connecticut, Inc., appealed to the trial court from the decision of the board of assessment appeals of the defendant town of Washington, claiming that it is a charitable organization, the real property of which is entitled to a tax exemption pursuant to General Statutes (Rev. to 1995) § 12-81 (7).3 The trial court granted the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment and rendered judgment thereon, from which the defendant appealed to the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court affirmed the trial court's judgment. H.O.R.S.E. of Connecticut, Inc. v. Washington, 57 Conn. App. 41, 51, 746 A.2d 820 (2000). We granted the defendant's petition for certification to appeal limited to the following two issues: "Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that: (1) there were no material facts in dispute regarding whether the plaintiffs property is used exclusively for charitable purposes under ... § 12-81 (7); and (2) even if there were no such facts in dispute, as a matter of law the plaintiff is a charitable organization under § 12-81 (7), and uses its property exclusively for charitable purposes?"
H.O.R.S.E. of Connecticut, Inc. v. Washington, 253 Conn. 911, 754 A.2d 161 (2000). We disagree with the Appellate Court's conclusion that the trial court properly determined that there are no material facts in dispute as to whether the plaintiff uses its property exclusively for charitable purposes and, consequently, we reverse the judgment of the Appellate Court.4
The following undisputed facts are set forth in the opinion of the Appellate Court. 6 (Internal quotation marks omitted.) H.O.R.S.E. of Connecticut, Inc. v. Washington, supra, 57 Conn. App. 42-43. Additional facts will be set forth as necessary.
The trial court granted the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment, concluding that there was no genuine issue of material fact and, on the basis of the undisputed facts, the plaintiffs property was tax exempt under § 12-81 (7) because the plaintiff is a charitable organization that uses its property exclusively for charitable purposes. On appeal to the Appellate Court, the defendant claimed that the trial court improperly had determined that there were no material facts in dispute. Id., 44. The defendant further claimed that, even if, as the trial court had concluded, there were no material facts in dispute, the plaintiff is not entitled to a property tax exemption under § 12-81 (7). Id., 46. The defendant advanced two arguments in support of this claim: first, the plaintiff does not qualify as a charitable organization for purposes of § 12-81 (7) because its purpose is to serve the well-being of horses, not that of social man; id., 47; and second, even if it is assumed that the plaintiff is a charitable organization within the meaning of § 12-81 (7), it nevertheless is not entitled to a property tax exemption because it does not use its property exclusively for charitable purposes. See id., 48. The Appellate Court rejected the defendant's arguments and affirmed the trial court's judgment. Id., 51. Because we conclude that a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether the plaintiff uses its property exclusively for charitable purposes, we conclude that summary judgment was inappropriate and, therefore, we reverse the judgment of the Appellate Court.7
Before addressing the merits of the defendant's claim, we set forth the applicable standard of review. 9 (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Appleton v. Board of Education, 254 Conn. 205, 209, 757 A.2d 1059 (2000). "A material fact ... [is] a fact which will make a difference in the result of the case." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Hammer v. Lumberman's Mutual Casualty Co., 214 Conn. 573, 578, 573 A.2d 699 (1990). Finally, the scope of our review of the trial court's decision to grant the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment is plenary. See, e.g., Doucette v. Pomes, 247 Conn. 442, 453, 724 A.2d 481 (1999).
Our review of the defendant's claim also is informed by the (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) United Church of Christ v. West Hartford, 206 Conn. 711, 718, 539 A.2d 573 (1988). "It is also well settled that the burden of proving entitlement to a claimed tax exemption rests upon the party claiming the exemption." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 719.
With these principles in mind, we turn to the defendant's claim that the Appellate Court improperly upheld the trial court's decision to grant the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment. Certain additional facts, however, are necessary to our resolution of that claim.
In support of its opposition to the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment, the defendant relied on the following testimony of Wahlers, which was taken at a deposition on January 23, 1997:
In support of its motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff submitted the affidavit...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
NetScout Sys., Inc. v. Gartner, Inc.
...a disputed issue of material fact in favor of either the plaintiff or the defendant. See, e.g., H.O.R.S.E. of Connecticut, Inc. v. Washington , 258 Conn. 553, 565, 783 A.2d 993 (2001) (ambiguous meaning of critical deposition testimony precluded summary judgment). It also is true that, in d......
-
St. Joseph's Living Ctr. v. Town of Windham
...are outside the strict scope of that purpose. This proposition is borne out, albeit indirectly, in H.O.R.S.E. of Connecticut, Inc. v. Washington, supra, 258 Conn. at 553, 783 A.2d 993. The plaintiff in H.O.R.S.E. of Connecticut, Inc., was a nonprofit organization dedicated to "the care of a......
-
Feliciano v. AutoZone, Inc.
...judgment is plenary.” (Citations omitted; footnotes omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) H.O.R.S.E. of Connecticut, Inc. v. Washington, 258 Conn. 553, 558–60, 783 A.2d 993 (2001). With these principles in mind, we first address the plaintiff's claim that the defendant unlawfully term......
-
Dipietro v. Arena
...motion for summary judgment is plenary.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) H.O.R.S.E. of Connecticut, Inc. v. Washington, 258 Conn. 553, 558–60, 783 A.2d 993 (2001). The relevant principles of premises liability are well established. A business owner owes its invitees a......
-
2001 Connecticut Appellate Review
...properly held investigative stop was justified by a reasonable and articulable suspicion); H.O.R.S.E. of Connecticut, Inc. v. Washington, 258 Conn. 553, 783 A.2d 993 (2001) (genuine issue of fact whether property used exclusively for charitable purposes). The authors represented the plainti......