Bacchiochi v. Town of Stafford, No. 48187 (Oct. 4, 1991)

Connecticut Superior Court

Bacchiochi v. Town of Stafford, No. 48187 (Oct. 4, 1991)

1991 Conn. Super. Ct. 8578

Connecticut Superior Court·Decided October 4, 1991·No. No. 48187·Unpublished

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON MOTION TO DISMISS The Respondent Town of Stafford moved to dismiss this tax appeal for two reasons. The first deficiency relates to the filing date of the appeal. The appeal dated July 10, 1991 was filed July 22, 1991, the Board of Tax Review transmitted its decision on May 1, 1991. Conn. Gen. Stat. See. 12-118 provides for an appeal, ". . . within two months from the time of such action. . ."

The Appellant argues that the time of receipt should control but offers no evidence as to when that occurred. Even if the date of receipt were used the court presumes that the postmarked notice was received within a few days of mailing. Appellant does not deny receipt of the notice.

The second reason for the Respondent, motion relates to the failure to annex a citation containing a notice of the return date and notice of requirement for filing an appearance, see Senie v. Carothers, 22 Conn. App. 253 (1990). The petition is defective in this respect as well.

The Motion to Dismiss is granted. CT Page 8579

HON. ROBERT F. McWEENY SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON MOTION TO DISMISS The Respondent Town of Stafford moved to dismiss this tax appeal for two reasons. The first deficiency relates to the filing date of the appeal. The appeal dated July 10, 1991 was filed July 22, 1991, the Board of Tax Review transmitted its decision on May 1, 1991. Conn. Gen. Stat. See. 12-118 provides for an appeal, ". . . within two months from the time of such action. . ."

The Appellant argues that the time of receipt should control but offers no evidence as to when that occurred. Even if the date of receipt were used the court presumes that the postmarked notice was received within a few days of mailing. Appellant does not deny receipt of the notice.

The second reason for the Respondent, motion relates to the failure to annex a citation containing a notice of the return date and notice of requirement for filing an appearance, see Senie v. Carothers, 22 Conn. App. 253 (1990). The petition is defective in this respect as well.

The Motion to Dismiss is granted. CT Page 8579

HON. ROBERT F. McWEENY SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE

Bacchiochi v. Town of Stafford, No. 48187 (Oct. 4, 1991), 1991 Conn. Super. Ct. 8578 (Colo. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

1991 Conn. Super. Ct. 8578 (Bacchiochi v. Town of Stafford, No. 48187 (Oct. 4, 1991)) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related