STEPNEY, LLC v. Fairfield
Decision Date | 20 May 2003 |
Docket Number | (SC 16929). |
Citation | 821 A.2d 725,263 Conn. 558 |
Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
Parties | STEPNEY, LLC v. TOWN OF FAIRFIELD |
Borden, Norcott, Katz, Palmer and Vertefeuille, Js.
James T. Baldwin, for the appellant (defendant).
George W. Ganim, Jr., for the appellee (plaintiff).
The dispositive issue in this appeal1 is whether the trial court had jurisdiction to consider the action by the plaintiff, Stepney, LLC, seeking to enjoin the defendant, the town of Fairfield, acting through the town's board of health and its director, Arthur Leffert, from enforcing a certain town health code ordinance. We conclude that, because the plaintiff failed to exhaust its administrative remedies, the trial court improperly exercised jurisdiction over this action. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court's judgment in favor of the plaintiff and order that the action be dismissed.
The record reveals the following facts and procedural history. The plaintiff, a limited liability corporation, owns two single-family homes, located at 989 and 1019 Fairfield Beach Road in Fairfield, and for many years has rented both properties to various tenants. Throughout this rental period until approximately 1999, the plaintiff annually completed an application for, and obtained, a certificate of rental occupancy (certificate) in compliance with the town's health code regulations governing rental dwellings, specifically regulation 3.3.2
In 1999, the defendant amended regulation 3.3 to require, in addition to the existing requirement that no false statement be made concerning specified tenant information, that applicants make no false statement concerning "any other information requested on [the] application form or by the Director of Health." Thereafter, the defendant amended the application form to require an applicant to: (1) provide tenants' license plate numbers; and (2) obtain tenants' signatures on a form certifying that they will comply with "applicable regulations, ordinances, and statutes" and that they will not exceed occupancy limitations. Despite the fact that both of its properties were rented in 1999, the plaintiff failed to apply for certificates that year. On July 13, 2000, the plaintiff served this action on the defendant, challenging the validity of regulation 3.3 and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. Specifically, the plaintiff contended that the enactment of the regulation was an ultra vires act by the defendant in excess of its statutory authority under General Statutes § 19a-207,3 and that the regulation was unconstitutional on various grounds.4 On July 18, 2000, the defendant, through Leffert, issued an order of compliance, pursuant to § 19a-207, ordering the plaintiff to apply for a certificate pursuant to regulation 3.3 of the Fairfield public health code.5 On July 21, 2000, the plaintiff appealed from the order to the state board of health pursuant to General Statutes § 19a-229,6 but thereafter withdrew the appeal.
At trial, the defendant moved to dismiss the action, claiming that the trial court did not have jurisdiction over the matter because the plaintiff had failed to exhaust its administrative remedies. Specifically, the defendant contended that the plaintiff was required to pursue its administrative appeal and that its failure to do so deprived the court of jurisdiction. The trial court denied the defendant's motion, concluding that the exhaustion doctrine did not apply because the plaintiff was attacking the validity and constitutionality of the regulation itself. The court then found that the information on the application form required by regulation 3.3 was not reasonably related to health and sanitary issues, and that the concerns of the board of health adequately were addressed by the defendant's zoning regulations.7 Therefore, the court determined that "[r]egulation 3.3 is inconsistent with General Statutes § 19a-207 and is void." The court then noted that, although it was not going to discuss the regulation's constitutionality, the absence of any definition of "tenant" made the regulation vague. Accordingly, the court rendered judgment for the plaintiff. This appeal followed.
The defendant claims that the trial court improperly: (1) failed to dismiss the plaintiff's appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction for failure to exhaust administrative remedies; and (2) determined that the enactment of regulation 3.3 exceeded the powers granted to municipal health authorities pursuant to General Statutes § 19a-200 et seq.8 We agree with the defendant's first claim and, therefore, do not address the second issue.
(Internal quotation marks omitted.) Fish Unlimited v. Northeast Utilities Service Co., 254 Conn. 1, 11-12, 756 A.2d 262 (2000).
(Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Hartford v. Hartford Municipal Employees Assn., 259 Conn. 251, 281-82, 788 A.2d 60 (2002).
(Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Fish Unlimited v. Northeast Utilities Service Co., supra, 254 Conn. 13. Because of the policy behind the exhaustion doctrine, we construe these exceptions narrowly. See, e.g., O & G Industries, Inc. v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 232 Conn. 419, 429, 655 A.2d 1121 (1995) ( ); Polymer Resources, Ltd. v. Keeney, supra, 561 ( ); Housing Authority v. Papandrea, supra, 222 Conn. 432 ( ).
Against this background, we must decide whether the plaintiff's failure to exhaust its appellate remedies pursuant to § 19a-229; see footnote 6 of this opinion; deprived the trial court of jurisdiction. More explicitly, we...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Strand/BRC Grp., LLC v. Bd. of Representatives of Stamford
...the appellate court will reverse the judgment of the lower court and the relief ordered. See, e.g., Stepney, LLC v. Fairfield , 263 Conn. 558, 571, 821 A.2d 725 (2003) (remanding case with direction to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction because of failure to exhaust administrative remedies); ......
-
Commissioner of Transp. v. Rocky Mountain
..."[T]he exhaustion doctrine implicates subject matter jurisdiction . . . ." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Stepney, LLC v. Fairfield, 263 Conn. 558, 563, 821 A.2d 725 (2003). "We have long held that because [a] determination regarding a trial court's subject matter jurisdiction is a que......
-
Lopez v. Bd. of Educ. of Bridgeport
...its statutory responsibilities.” (Citations omitted; emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted.) Stepney, LLC v. Fairfield, 263 Conn. 558, 564–65, 821 A.2d 725 (2003). Given that the legislature, through the enactment of § 10–157(b) and (c), has placed the determination of the defend......
-
Fin. Consulting, LLC v. Comm'r of Ins.
...role in administering its statutory responsibilities.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Stepney, LLC v. Fairfield, 263 Conn. 558, 564–65, 821 A.2d 725 (2003). “Most important, a favorable outcome will render review by the court unnecessary [because] as the United State......