Skip to main content

Seramonte Associates, LLC v. Hamden

Citations

  • 345 Conn. 76

Syllabus

Pursuant to statute (§ 12-63c (a)), an owner of real property used primarily for the purpose of producing rental income may be required to ''annually submit to the assessor not later than the first day of June'' certain income and expense information for such property. Pursuant further to statute (§ 12-63c (d)), an owner who fails to submit the information required by § 12-63c (a) ''shall be subject to a penalty equal to a ten per cent increase in the assessed value of such property for such assessment year.'' The plaintiff, who owns certain real property in the town of Hamden, appealed to the trial court from the decision of the defendant town's board of assessment appeals, which upheld the assessment, pursuant to § 12-63c (d), of a 10 percent penalty against the plaintiff's property for the plaintiff's purportedly late submission of certain 2015 income and expense information pursuant to § 12-63c (a). The plaintiff had mailed the information on May 31, 2016, but the assessor did not receive it until June 2, 2016, one day after the June 1 deadline set forth in § 12- 63c (a). The trial court upheld the board's decision, granted the town's motion for summary judgment, and rendered judgment for the town, concluding that the penalty was not improperly imposed because the word ''submit,'' as used in § 12-63c (a), required that the assessor receive the information by June 1. The Appellate Court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that, when viewed in the context of other tax statutes, the use of the word ''submit'' in § 12-63c (a) unambiguously required delivery of the information to the assessor by June 1. On the granting of certification, the plaintiff appealed to this court, claiming, inter alia, that the term ''submit'' in § 12-63c (a) means ''to send'' and that the Appellate Court, therefore, incorrectly had concluded that the term ''submit'' required that the assessor receive the income and expense information by June 1. Held that the Appellate Court co

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • rejecting proposed construction of ‘‘the word ‘sub- mit’ ’’ in part because of practical considerations regard- ing incentive of taxpayers to ensure ‘‘that municipal assessors obtain necessary information in a timely fash- ion’’

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Robinson; McDonald; D’Auria; Mullins; Kahn; Ecker; Alexander

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

12 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

31 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named Seramonte Associates, LLC v. Hamden

1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.