Connecticut Supreme Court Sides With Groton in Feud Over Home Assessments
Groton resident John Tuohy led a class action against the town and its assessor, claiming properties in his neighborhood were unfairly assessed. The Connecticut Supreme Court sided with the town.
May 28, 2019 at 12:23 PM
3 minute read
The Connecticut Supreme Court has ruled unanimously in favor of the town of Groton, which was the subject of a class action lawsuit by homeowners in the Long Point neighborhood who claimed the municipality unfairly valued their homes and hiked property taxes.
The state's high court ruled 7-0 that John Tuohy, who led a class action with 10 plaintiffs, failed to make the case that the town's assessor should never have increased the assessment, without first considering things such as the unique characteristics of each home.
There are about 600 properties in the Groton Long Point neighborhood, located in southeastern Connecticut.
At issue is the 2011 revaluation, which Assessor Mary Gardner oversaw and that Tyler Technologies conducted, for Groton's 13 neighborhoods, including Groton Long Point.
After the computer printed out the results of the assessments of Groton Long Point, Gardner felt the numbers undervalued properties in a neighborhood where fair market value assessment has risen 35%. The redo was meant to adjust the assessments to bring them closer to fair market values.
But plaintiffs raised several arguments in their appeal of a Superior Court ruling in the town's favor.
“The application of a fixed percentage factor to increase assessments without making any allowance for individual differences in properties has been widely condemned by the courts of this state,” they argued in court pleadings, claiming the 35% figure the assessor used “is arbitrary, unreasonable and without foundation in fact.”
The town, on the other hand, argued it properly used the 35% assessment number and that the methodology was consistent with the Office of Policy and Management regulations and other standards.
In writing the court's 24-page opinion, Chief Justice Richard Robinson said: “The defendants contend that the plaintiffs failed to prove the valuation of their properties was manifestly excessive because they did not present any credible evidence of the values of their properties. We agree with the defendants and conclude that their application of the 1.35 adjustment (or 35 percent) factor to the Groton Long Point residential properties during the 2011 revaluation was not illegal.”
Robinson continued: “Accordingly, we conclude that the circumstances presented here do not rise to the level of the extraordinary situation that would warrant tax relief.”
In their lawsuit, the plaintiffs had sought injunctive relief, ordering the assessments of their residential properties be reduced to the original value.
Representing the plaintiffs were Hartford-based Robinson & Cole attorneys Linda Morkan and John Peloso. Both attorneys declined to comment on the ruling.
The town's attorney, Eileen Duggan with New London-based Suisman Shapiro Attorneys at Law, did not respond to a request for comment Tuesday.
Gardner, the assessor, was not in the office Tuesday and unavailable for comment.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllRead the Document: 'Google Must Divest Chrome,' DOJ Says, Proposing Remedies in Search Monopoly Case
3 minute readApple Asks Judge to 'Follow the Majority Practice' in Dismissing Patent Dispute Over Night Vision Technology
'Don't Be Afraid to Dumb It Down': Top Fed Magistrate Judge Gives Tips on Explaining Complex Discovery Disputes
State High Court Adopts Modern Standard for Who Keeps $70K Engagement Ring After Breakup
Trending Stories
- 1Kirkland Hires Real Estate Finance Partners in New York
- 2Delaware Governor Names Magistrate Judge as Next Vice Chancellor
- 3Hagens Berman Accused of Withholding Share of $13M Award in Pharmaceutical Settlement
- 4What to Know About Naming a Law Firm
- 5Texas Shows the Way Forward in Resolving Mass Tort Gridlock
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250