Trujillo v. City of Norwalk, No. FST CV04 4000371 S (CT 9/7/2005)
| Decision Date | 07 September 2005 |
| Docket Number | No. FST CV04 4000371 S,FST CV04 4000371 S |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | Eric L. Trujillo et al. v. City of Norwalk Opinion No.: 90217 |
This is an application in the nature of an appeal from the Board of Assessment Appeals (BAA) of the defendant City of Norwalk brought by the plaintiffs, Eric L. Trujillo and Margaret A. Trujillo. The appeal is filed pursuant to the provisions of Conn. Gen. Statutes §12-117a, claims overvaluation of the plaintiffs' residence in the Rowayton section of Norwalk, and that the assessment does not represent 70% of the property's true and actual value on the assessment date of October 1, 2003. They seek a reduction in the valuation on the assessment list of October 1, 2003 and on all Grand List years subsequent to October 1, 2003 in the same revaluation cycle, and reimbursement or credit by the defendant for any overpayment of taxes, together with interest and costs awarded by the court.
In March 2004 the plaintiffs received a notice from the defendant's assessor that the full market value of their residence on October 1, 2003 was $1,334,200 and that, at 70% of market value, the assessed value was $933,940. The plaintiffs, claiming to be aggrieved by the doings of the assessor, duly appealed to the BAA which reduced the full value of the property to $ 1,240,700 and the assessed value to $868,490. Contending that the revised assessment still did not represent 70% of the true and actual value of their property as of October 1, 2003, the plaintiffs filed this appeal.
The subject property consists of a single family residence situated on a .29-acre lot located at the corner of Sammis Street and Bluff Avenue in the Rowayton section of Norwalk. The site and its use is legally conforming to zoning, and is approximately 100 to 150 yards from Long Island Sound, directly across Bluff Avenue from the Rowayton Yacht Club. The structure is a 24-year-old home of colonial design in good condition, containing 2,072 square feet of above-grade living area with seven rooms (four bedrooms) and three-and one-half baths. There is also a finished basement of 1,036 square feet, a porch, deck and two-car garage. It has a hot water heating system and no central air conditioning.1 The site's proximity to the water gives limited views of Long Island Sound from the corner of the master bedroom, from the deck above the garage, and partial views from ground level. The site itself is level with landscaping described by the defendant's appraiser as excellent. Exhibits admitted into evidence during the trial included photographs of the house and lot with its landscaping. The property does not have legal access to the water.
The Supreme Court has reiterated the legal tenets governing tax appeals brought pursuant to §12-117a, stating that "the trial court tries the matter de novo and the ultimate question is the ascertainment of the true and actual value of the taxpayer's property . . . at the de novo proceeding, the taxpayer bears the burden of establishing that the assessor has over assessed its property." Torres v. Waterbury, 249 Conn. 110, 117, 733 A.2d 817 (1999).
At trial, the plaintiffs presented their appraiser, Michele A. Watson, a certified residential appraiser licensed by the State of Connecticut, which license she has held for approximately five-and-one-half years. Watson testified that the plaintiffs' property had a fair market value of $845,000 on October 1, 2003. Testifying for the defendant were the Assessor for the City of Norwalk, Kenneth Whitman, and Michael Fazio, a member of the Appraisal Institute and licensed by the State as a certified general real estate appraiser. He has been working as a full-time appraiser of real estate for 22 years. Fazio's opinion of market value of the subject property as of October 1, 2003 is $1,300,000, which exceeds the assessor's figure of $1,240,700, reduced from $1,334,200 after the BAA's decision.
Both appraisers testified they relied primarily on the comparable sales approach to market value. They said they also considered the reproduction cost in reaching their opinions. Uniroyal v. Board of Tax Review, 174 Conn. 380, 385-86, 389 A.2d 734 (1978). "As a rule, however, no one method is controlling; consideration should be given to them all if they have been utilized, in arriving at the value of the property." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 386.
In applying the market sales approach, the plaintiffs' appraiser, Watson, utilized three comparable sales in the Rowayton area, as did the defendants' appraiser, Fazio. All of Watson's comparables are more distant from the subject property than Fazio's most distant comparable. Watson's comparables numbers 2 and 3 are . 45 miles and .44 miles, respectively, from the subject property, with her comparable number 1 being more than 3/4 of a mile away. Fazio's most distant comparable is .31 miles from the subject, while the other two comparables are .05 miles and . 04 miles away.
Both appraisers agreed that location, in a waterfront community such as Rowayton, is of primary importance, including proximity to the water. Both made meaningful adjustments to the comparable sales prices to arrive at a weighted average. In arriving at value through the cost approach method, Watson used an estimated reproduction cost for the dwelling of $150 per square foot, $60 per square foot for the finished basement, and $30 per square foot for the garage. These figures were based on "standard costs." Fazio assigned $175 per square foot to the dwelling, $75 per square foot to the basement, and $50 per square foot to the garage. He used Marshall Valuation Service, a recognized volume, for his construction costs as well current construction and development cost data provided by builders, contractors and subcontractors in the local market.
After applying depreciation, the plaintiffs' appraiser found an indicated value by the cost approach of $851,900, but relying more on her comparable sales, assigns a market value of the subject property of $845,000. After depreciation, the defendant's appraiser gives a figure of $1,337,397 by the cost approach, but also giving more weight to the comparable sales method, assigns a final estimated value of $1,300,000 to the subject property.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial