Town of Woodstock v. Retreat, Inc.

• Citation: 3 A.2d 232,125 Conn. 52
• Court: Supreme Court of Connecticut
• Decision Date: 07 December 1938
• Parties: TOWN OF WOODSTOCK v. THE RETREAT, Inc.

3 A.2d 232

125 Conn. 52

TOWN OF WOODSTOCK v. THE RETREAT, Inc.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

December 7, 1938

Appeal from Superior Court, Windham County; Edward J. Quinlan Judge.

Action by the Town of Woodstock against The Retreat, Incorporated to foreclose four tax liens, brought to the superior court and referred to a state referee, and the court accepted the referee's report. From a judgment for plaintiff as to two of the liens, and for the defendant as to the other two, both parties appeal.

Error on the plaintiff's appeal, and cause remanded with directions; no error upon defendant's appeal.

Mahlon H. Geissler, of Putnam, for plaintiff.

Harry E. Back, of Danielson, and Percy W. Gardner, of Boston Mass., for defendant.

Argued before MALTBIE, C.J., and HINMAN, AVERY, BROWN, and JENNINGS JJ.

AVERY Judge.

The plaintiff brought this action to foreclose four tax liens assessed against the defendant on the lists respectively of October 1, 1930, 1931, 1932, and 1933, upon two pieces of property consisting of a tract of approximately fourteen acres of land with buildings thereon situated on the south side of Senexet Road in Woodstock; also a tract of about thirty-three acres on the opposite side of the road with two buildings thereon. The principal building upon the property was located upon the south tract and was erected by a former owner as a residence. It contains nineteen sleeping rooms, several baths and toilets, a dining room, a kitchen fitted with facilities for cooking for a large number of people, a large living room and a small chapel, which was installed by the present owner upon acquiring the property and dedicated with the same formalities used by the Unitarian denomination in dedicating a church. The taxes were assessed by the officials of the town of Woodstock, and certificates of liens to secure such taxes were filed and recorded in the land records of the town. Defendant attacks the assessments only upon the ground that the property is exempt from taxation.

The Retreat, Inc., was originally incorporated under the laws of Massachusetts. Its chartered purpose was stated to be: ‘ To establish, or assist in establishing, a retreat house where ministers and laymen of the Unitarian church, and all other persons who so desire, may go from time to time for spiritual rest and refreshment, and/or to maintain a temporary retreat or retreats for such purposes, and/or in any other way to assist in the establishment, maintenance or carrying on of such a retreat or retreats, to the end that religious life may be increased and deepened among the ministers and laymen of the Unitarian faith and among other liberal Christians.’ Subsequently, in August, 1932, The Retreat, Inc., was incorporated under the laws of Connecticut. Its purpose was stated to be ‘ to carry on and maintain a retreat house exclusively used as a place of religious worship where ministers and laymen of the Unitarian church and all other persons so desiring may go from time to time for spiritual rest and refreshment, to the end that the religious life may be increased and deepened among ministers and laymen of the Unitarian faith and among other liberal Christians.’ The legal title to the property was conveyed to the Massachusetts corporation in November, 1929, and has so remained ever since no conveyance ever having been made by it to the Connecticut corporation. Since the organization of the latter corporation the former has become dormant, and the affairs of The Retreat have been conducted by the Connecticut corporation, which was incorporated for the purpose of bringing the property more closely into compliance with the laws and tax laws of Connecticut, but by an unintentional oversight no deed was executed to it by the Massachusetts corporation.

The property has been used for retreats for Unitarian ministers, laymen, laywomen and young people; and, when not exclusively for ministers, the retreats have been under the supervision of some Unitarian minister or ministers. Under the rules of the house each group opens the day with religious devotional exercises in the chapel and terminates it with a like service. Between the services discussions are held in the living room upon religious topics and subjcets of vital importance to the Unitarian denomination in the conduct of its religious work. Prior to 1932, the property was used by fifty-two persons. In 1933 there were fifteen meetings. Those who attend the retreats are expected to pay a sum representing the actual cost of supplying them with food and something toward the care of the rooms occupied. The income from those who have attended has been much less than the actual cost of operating, the deficits being made up by gifts and loans. Neither corporation has any property outside of the real estate in question nor any endowment. None of the officers of the corporation receive any salaries and the actual supervision of the house is in the hands of the widow of a Unitarian clergyman who gives her services without compensation. The questions involved on this appeal are whether the property is exempt from taxation as a house of religious worship or as a dwelling house held in trust for a religious organization and actually used by its officiating clergyman as provided in General Statutes, § 1163, subdivision 11 and 13, appended in the footnote.^[1]

‘ Taxation is an act of sovereignty, to be enforced, so far as it conveniently can be, with justice and equality to all. Exemptions, no matter how meritorious, are of grace, and must be strictly construed. They embrace only what is strictly within their terms.’ Hartford v Hartford Theological Seminary, 66 Conn. 475, 482, 34 A. 483, 484; Yale University v. New Haven, 71 Conn. 316, 329, 42 A. 87,43 L.R.A. 490; Stoughton v. Hartford, 85 Conn. 674, 678, 84 A. 95. In Masonic Building Association v. Stamford, 119 Conn. 53, 60, 61, 174 A. 301, in holding that a building used as a Masonic temple was not exempt as a ‘ house of religious worship,’ we referred to a change in the statute as made in 1929, although in fact it was made in 1927. Public Acts, 1927, Chap. 319. We said that previous to this change [page 303], ‘ the only exemption of the property of organizations religious in nature was that of ‘ churches' and the buildings belonging to and used exclusively for ecclesiastical societies. These provisions evidently referred to buildings devoted to the practice of religious worship as it is customarily carried on in or in connection with the forms of such worship traditional in this state. Such churches ordinarily conduct...