Wilcox v. Town of Madison

• Decision Date: 30 July 1925
• Docket Number: 21269.,20020
• Citation: 130 A. 84,103 Conn. 149
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: WILCOX v. TOWN OF MADISON (TWO CASES).

130 A. 84

103 Conn. 149

WILCOX v. TOWN OF MADISON (TWO CASES).

Nos. 20020, 21269.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

July 30, 1925

Appeal from Superior Court, New Haven County; Allyn L. Brown, Judge.

Two actions by George A. Wilcox against the Town of Madison in the nature of appeals from the doings of the Board of Relief of the Town of Madison. Facts found and judgment rendered for the defendant in each case, from which plaintiff appealed for alleged errors in the rulings of the court. No error in either appeal.

Claude H. Voorhees and Mary E. Manchester, both of New Haven, for appellant.

Ernest L. Averill, of Branford, Louis B. Zacher, of New Haven, and Arthur W. Marsden, of Madison, for appellee.

CURTIS, J.

The substantial question before a trial court, in appeals to it of this nature, is whether the applicant has been aggrieved " by such action of the board of relief as must result in his payment of an unjust and therefore practically illegal tax," which, in the instant case, could only arise by an improper listing of the property of the plaintiff or by improperly adding 10 per cent. to the valuation fixed by the assessors as stated below. Ives v Goshen et al., 65 Conn. 460, 32 A. 932. We further said in that case that--

" The question whether or not the applicant has been aggrieved is made a judicial question, and must be determined in the affirmative before the power to grant relief, which is in its nature largely administrative, and is given in terms so broad as to imply great discretionary power, is called into action" by the trial court.

The trial court, by its judgment, found that the plaintiff was not aggrieved by the proceedings of the administrative body which were reviewed in these hearings. The question which the appeal requires us to answer is: Were the conclusions of the trial court illegally or illogically drawn from the subordinate facts?

First we will take up case No. 20020. In the fall of 1922, the applicant filed the regular printed form of a tax list prescribed for 1922, with his name and residence written in at the top, and his signature and that of the official taking his oath with the date at the bottom of the first page. The only other writing on this page appears in the column headed " Owner's Valuation," written up and down the page as follows: " No material change in these items of personal property since my return of 1921." The only writing on the second page was the words, " No change in my real estate properties since my detailed tax return of 1921," and under the heading " Choses in Action" the word " None." There was a properly filled out tax list of 1921 on file. This so-called list of 1922 the assessors refused to accept, and thereupon, claiming to act under the provisions of section 1138, made a list for the plaintiff, making a separate description and valuation of each parcel of real estate, and added thereto 10 per cent. of what they determined the actual valuation of the property to be. The court found as to this valuation of the real estate that it was the fair actual market value of the property assessed.

The plaintiff appealed from such action to the board of relief, and claimed that the assessors were not justified in rejecting the list of 1922, which was based on a reference to the list of the previous year, and hence that the addition of 10 per cent. to its valuation of the applicant's property was illegal, and that the action of the board of relief in not eliminating the 10 per cent. added to the valuation of his property had in any event caused him to be taxed an unlawful amount. The board of relief ruled, in substance, that under General Statutes, § 1138, a tax list containing merely a reference to a prior list for the " description of each parcel of real estate" was not such a list as was intended by that section of the statute. The court upon the same facts reached the same conclusion. In this the court did not err.

It would be an unreasonable and inadmissible construction of section 1138 to so construe it as to permit the property owners of any town to file a list each year bearing, in substance, merely the words, " property the same as on last year's list." Section 1138 in its terms imposes on each resident liable to give in a list, the duty of annually giving in a list, making a " separate description of each parcel of his real estate." ^[1]

Lists made out as that of the plaintiff would impose on the assessors the duty of verifying and perfecting the lists by reference to a prior detailed list, a duty which section 1138 does not impose upon them, and which assessors, an impermanent body, are not equipped to undertake. The Legislature, in enacting section 1138, had the matter of description by reference in mind and provided therein that--

" Where reference can be made to a map on file in the town clerk's office such reference shall be sufficient description."

It is a fair implication from this fact that it did not consider any other description by reference admissible. The courts are not in a position to legislate to the effect that only a reference to a prior list may be made, to supply the separate description of each parcel of real estate required. If the courts hold that a description by reference may be made, they must make the rule by holding that on principle a description by reference is lawful, which at least would involve a description by reference to deeds on record, and to the tax list of a person of any year. This leads to impracticable results, for if a landowner filed a correct list a number of years ago, which old list happened, because of purchases and sales of land meantime, after a considerable period to correctly describe his present holdings, he could refer to such old list in a present list as a sufficient description of his real estate.

The assessors are an impermanent body, periodically changing in membership, whose work of valuation is not necessarily performed at or near the town clerk's office in any town. It is therefore highly improbable that the Legislature intended, in section 1138, to permit a description of land by reference. Section 1142, by penalizing an assessor for accepting a list not legally made out and perfected, seems to require the construction of section 1138 given above. The trial court, in so construing section 1138 and in concluding that there was no grievance suffered...