Torrington Tax Collector, LLC v. Riley
Citations
- 354 Conn. 66
Syllabus
The plaintiff, the municipal tax collector for the city of Torrington, com- menced a bank execution action against the defendant in 2021, seeking to levy funds from the defendant's bank accounts and to apply those funds toward the tax debt of a business in which she previously had been involved. The trial court in the 2021 action, however, granted the defendant's motion for exemption, concluding that the plaintiff's bank execution action was \of no effect\ because the defendant, who had moved to California at least ten years earlier, had not received notice of or an opportunity to challenge the tax debt at issue, and also because the plaintiff had failed to comply with the statutory (§ 12-155 (a)) requirement that it make written demand of the plaintiff at her usual place of abode or last known place of residence. The plaintiff appealed from the court's decision to grant the motion but later withdrew its appeal. The plaintiff then sent written demand to the defendant at her California address and commenced the present bank execution action, but it never provided the defendant with a new tax bill or an opportunity to challenge that bill. The defendant again moved for exemption, which the trial court granted and rendered judgment for the defendant, reasoning that the present action was a collateral attack on the court's previous decision in the 2021 action and was therefore barred by, inter alia, the doctrine of col- lateral estoppel. The Appellate Court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the doctrine of collateral estoppel barred the plaintiff from relitigating the issue of whether it could execute on the defendant's funds without first providing adequate notice and an opportunity to challenge because that issue was actually litigated and necessarily determined in the 2021 action. On the granting of certification, the plaintiff appealed to this court, claiming, inter alia, that the doctrine of collateral estoppel did not bar the present action becau
Judges: Mullins; McDonald; D’Auria; Ecker; Dannehy; Bright
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.