Birnbaum v. Town of Madison, No. 37 96 35 (Jan. 9, 1996)

Connecticut Superior Court

Birnbaum v. Town of Madison, No. 37 96 35 (Jan. 9, 1996)

1996 Conn. Super. Ct. 25, 15 Conn. L. Rptr. 640

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedJanuary 9, 1996

DocketNo. 37 96 35

StatusUnpublished

This text of 1996 Conn. Super. Ct. 25 (Birnbaum v. Town of Madison, No. 37 96 35 (Jan. 9, 1996)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Superior Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Birnbaum v. Town of Madison, No. 37 96 35 (Jan. 9, 1996), 1996 Conn. Super. Ct. 25, 15 Conn. L. Rptr. 640 (Colo. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON APPLICATION FOR RELIEF AGAINST EXCESSIVETAX VALUATION This application for relief against excessive tax valuation is predicated on C.G.S. § 12-119. Plaintiffs claim that the tax laid on the property, known as 301 Boston Post Road in the Town of Madison, which property is more particularly described in Schedule A attached to the complaint and made a part hereof, was computed on an assessment which under all the circumstances was manifestly excessive and could not have been arrived at except by disregarding the provisions of the statutes for determining the valuation of such property.

Such property has been classified as forest land. One of the plaintiffs transferred subject property for no consideration to a revocable trust for which he is grantor, one of the trustees and the beneficiary. The Assessor then assessed subject property at its fair market value resulting in a gross assessment of it from $1,920 to $86,740 and a tax increase from $41.36 to $1,908.29.

It is plaintiffs' claim that the assessor had no authority to terminate the classification of subject property "as farm, forest or open space land" under C.G.S. § 12-504h because neither of the following had occurred, i.e., (1) a change to use other than bat described in the application for the existing classification by said record owner, or (2) such land (was) sold by said record owner.

There is no evidence on which to predicate a finding of fact that the conditions enumerated in § 12-504h, (1) or (2) apply to this case. CT Page 26

This decision relies on Timber Trails Associates v. NewFairfield, 226 Conn. 407, pages 413-14, Part 11, A, (1993), because it is undisputed that the use of the land had not changed and the land was not sold by the record owner since there is no evidence of a transfer of the absolute title therein for a price.

Since there has been no evidence of a change of use or sale of such land there can be no "obligation to pay the conveyance tax imposed" by Chapter 224, title 12 C.G.S. and the classifications (§§ 12-107c, 12-107d, or 12-107e) recorded in the land records of Madison remains with the particular owner who requested such classification. C.G.S. § 12-504b.

Paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of plaintiffs' prayer for relief are granted.

John N. Reynolds, State Trial Referee

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 APPLICATION FOR RELIEF AGAINST EXCESSIVETAX VALUATION This application for relief against excessive tax valuation is predicated on C.G.S. § 12-119. Plaintiffs claim that the tax laid on the property, known as 301 Boston Post Road in the Town of Madison, which property is more particularly described in Schedule A attached to the complaint and made a part hereof, was computed on an assessment which under all the circumstances was manifestly excessive and could not have been arrived at except by disregarding the provisions of the statutes for determining the valuation of such property.