American Tax Funding, LLC v. First Eagle Corp.

Citations

• 196 Conn. App. 298

Syllabus

The plaintiff, an assignee of municipal tax liens for the tax years 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008, sought to collect the unpaid taxes on the 2006 through 2008 tax liens. The tax liens had been assigned to the plaintiff by the city of Hartford pursuant to statute (§ 12-195h), which grants to the assignee the same powers and rights the municipality would have if the lien had not been assigned. The plaintiff previously brought a separate action to foreclose on the 2005 tax lien, in which it obtained a judgment of strict foreclosure that it later assigned. In the collection action, the defendant property owner asserted various special defenses, including that the plaintiff's claims were extinguished pursuant to statute (§ 12- 195) because the plaintiff had obtained a judgment of strict foreclosure on the 2005 tax lien, and that the defendant's debt had been satisfied. Section 12-195 provides that when a municipality acquires real estate by foreclosure, the acquisition is deemed a cancellation by the municipal- ity as against the tax collector for unpaid taxes. The trial court rendered judgment in favor of the defendant on these two special defenses, from which the plaintiff appealed to this court. Held: 1. The trial court properly found that, pursuant to § 12-195 and the controlling precedent of Municipal Funding, LLC v. Gallulo (72 Conn. App. 755), the 2006 through 2008 tax liens were extinguished by the judgment of strict foreclosure rendered in favor of the plaintiff or its assignee in the foreclosure action on the 2005 tax lien and, thus, barred the plaintiff from recovering in this action; moreover, because the plaintiff or its assignee acquired title to the property by foreclosure, pursuant to § 12- 195, all of its claims, in whatever form those claims might take, were extinguished, a result that coincides with the common-law rule that prohibits double recovery and provides that a plaintiff may be compen- sated only once. 2. This court declined to review the plaintif