SG Pequot 200, LLC v. Fairfield
Citations
- 223 Conn. App. 333
Syllabus
Pursuant to statute (§ 12-111 (a) (1)), ''[a]ny person . . . claiming to be aggrieved by the doings of the assessors of [a] town may appeal there- from to the board of assessment appeals. Such appeal shall be filed in writing or by electronic mail in a manner prescribed by such board on or before February twentieth. . . .'' Pursuant further to statute (§ 12-112), ''[n]o appeal from the doings of the assessors in any town shall be heard or entertained by the board of assessment appeals . . . unless written appeal is made on or before February twentieth in accordance with the provisions of section 12-111.'' The plaintiff limited liability company appealed to this court from the trial court's judgment dismissing its municipal tax appeal brought pursuant to statute (§ 12-117a). In October, 2021, the defendant town assessed the plaintiff's property and set forth a valuation. The plaintiff mailed its petition to appeal the valuation to the town's board of assessment appeals on Friday, February 18, 2022, via commercial standard overnight shipping. The town's municipal offices were closed Saturday, February 19, 2022, through Monday, February 21, 2022, Washington's Birthday, a legal holiday. On February 22, 2022, the board received the plaintiff's petition and, on February 23, 2022, the board notified the plaintiff that its petition would not be heard because it was received after February 20, the statutory deadline set forth in §§ 12-111 (a) (1) and 12-112. The plaintiff then appealed to the trial court pursuant to § 12-117a, alleging, inter alia, that it had been aggrieved by the board under § 12-117a and that its appeal to the board had been timely. The town filed an answer and asserted several special defenses, including that the plaintiff's claim was barred under § 12-117a because the plaintiff did not file its petition before the statutory deadline. The town subsequently filed a motion for partial summary judgment, arguing, inter alia, that there was no genuine issue o
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- explaining that § 405(g) did not act as a bar to the resolution of constitutional questions raised by the claimant when seeking review of the Secretary’s decision
- dicta noting that district court, once supplied with sufficient record, will “decide what relief, if any, is consonant with due process and the Secretary’s regulatory scheme”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Bright; Alvord; Moll
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced 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.