Midway Green Corp. v. Board of Tax Review of Town of Windsor
| Decision Date | 05 August 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 4451,4451 |
| Citation | 8 Conn.App. 440,512 A.2d 984 |
| Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
| Parties | MIDWAY GREEN CORPORATION v. BOARD OF TAX REVIEW OF the TOWN OF WINDSOR. |
Sanford J. Plepler, Manchester, filed a brief, for appellant (plaintiff).
Vincent W. Oswecki, Jr., Windsor, filed a brief, for appellee (defendant).
Before DUPONT, C.J., and BORDEN and SPALLONE, JJ.
The plaintiff has appealed from the judgment rendered after the trial court dismissed its tax appeal. The plaintiff challenged the assessment of its real estate by the town of Windsor on the grand lists of October 1, 1982, 1983 and 1984. In its original complaint, the plaintiff appealed from the decision of the defendant, the Windsor board of tax review, assessing the plaintiff's real estate in the amount of $2,325,880 on the grand list of October 1, 1982. By amendments to its complaint, the defendant appealed the assessment of $2,828,740 on the grand list of both October 1, 1983, and October 1, 1984. After a full trial, the court sustained the action of the board and rendered judgment for the defendant.
On appeal to this court, the plaintiff claims that the decision of the trial court is erroneous because it held that the plaintiff failed to sustain its burden of proof as to whether the action of the assessor, in not lowering the percentage of completion regarding a commercial building located on the property, was a nonfeasance or misfeasance. The plaintiff also claims that the court's conclusion as to the fair market value of the property was erroneous.
Regardless of the arguments pressed by the plaintiff, this appeal is predicated upon the proposition that the court should have accepted the plaintiff's rather than the defendant's appraisers' valuation of the real estate in question. Further, although the plaintiff emphasizes in its brief a "percentage of completion" variance found in the reports of different appraisers, such an argument is irrelevant and unavailing since an appraisal is based on the fair market value of the real estate on a given date rather than on the percentage of completion on that date.
The only question properly before us is whether the conclusion of the trial court is supported by the evidence adduced at the trial. In an appeal from the action of a board of tax review, the function of the trial court is the ascertainment of the true and actual value of the plaintiff's property. Dickau v. Glastonbury, 156 Conn. 437, 444, 242 A.2d 777 (1968); see Burritt Mutual Savings Bank v. New Britain, 146 Conn. 669, 673, 154 A.2d 608 (1959). The ultimate decision for the court is whether, considering all of the evidence, including a viewing of the property, the plaintiff has proved by a fair preponderance of the evidence that any of the assessments on its property were illegal or excessive. Our Supreme Court has noted that this is a difficult burden. Uniroyal, Inc. v. Board of Tax Review, 182 Conn. 619, 633 n. 8, 438 A.2d 782 (1981). " '[P]roper deference must be given to the judgment and experience of assessors.' " Id., quoting Connecticut Coke Co. v. New Haven, 169 Conn. 663, 668, 364 A.2d 178 (1975). In applying this principle, " '[t]he law contemplates that a wide discretion is to be accorded to assessors, and unless their action is discriminatory or so unreasonable that property is substantially overvalued and thus injustice and illegality result, their opinion and judgment should control in the determination of value for taxation purposes.' " Federated Department Stores, Inc. v. Board of Tax Review, 162 Conn. 77, 86, 291 A.2d 715 (1971), quoting Burritt Mutual Savings Bank v. New Britain, supra, 146 Conn. 675, 154 A.2d 608; see Somers v. Meriden, 119 Conn. 5, 13, 174 A. 184 (1934). Only if the court finds that the property has been overvalued by the assessors, can it exercise its power to correct the valuation. Hutensky v. Avon, 163 Conn. 433, 437, 311 A.2d 92 (1972).
In arriving at its determination as to the correctness of the valuation, the trier is not limited to arbitrating the differing opinions of the expert witnesses...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Zimny v. Cooper-Jarrett, Inc.
... ... The standard of review for an appellate court in a case like this was ... ...
-
Sears Roebuck and Co. v. Board of Tax Review of the Town of West Hartford
...its determination of whether the plaintiff has satisfied the burden of establishing overvaluation. See Midway Green Corp. v. Board of Tax Review, 8 Conn.App. 440, 442, 512 A.2d 984 (1986) ("[t]he ultimate decision for the court is whether, considering all of the evidence ... the plaintiff h......
-
First Bethel Associates v. Town of Bethel, 15006
...23 Conn.App. 460, 465, 581 A.2d 1061 (1990), cert. denied, 217 Conn. 805, 584 A.2d 1190 (1991); Midway Green Corp. v. Board of Tax Review, 8 Conn.App. 440, 443, 512 A.2d 984 (1986). Section 12-63b provides an assessor with guidance in producing a valuation that best approximates the actual ......
-
Kawa v. Town of Hartland, No. CV-03-00090729-S (Conn. Super. 3/29/2004)
...to the trial court, as the trier of fact. Newbury Commons Limited Partnership v. Stamford, supra, at 99, Midway Green Corporation v. Board of Tax Review, 8 Conn.App. 440, 443 (1986). It is well established that "[i]n a case tried before a court, the trial judge is the sole arbiter of the cr......