John Mulqueen Associates, Inc. v. Miller, No. 31 38 90 (Apr. 18, 1996)
This text of 1996 Conn. Super. Ct. 3561 (John Mulqueen Associates, Inc. v. Miller, No. 31 38 90 (Apr. 18, 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.
Opinion
The court, after due trial, makes the following findings of fact:
1. Sandra A. Petersen was Tax Collector of the Town of Bethel from October, 1988 to October, 1993.
2. In 1991, the property had an assessed value for tax purposes of $481,980, representing 70 percent of fair market value.
3. As of 1991, taxes in the amount of $30,124 were owed by the plaintiff.
4. Until January, 1990, plaintiff's office was located at Crow's Nest Lane, Danbury, Connecticut; thereafter, it was moved to Nature's Way, Darien, Connecticut, and a forwarding request was made to the Danbury Post Office.
5. Thereafter, plaintiff received tax bills, which he never paid, at the Darien address.
6. On or about October 10, 1991, a tax collector's demand letter was mailed to the plaintiff at both the Danbury and Darien addresses, and the plaintiff paid demand at the Darien address.
7. On November 19, 1991, the tax collector mailed notice of the sale to the plaintiff at both the Danbury and Darien addresses. Certified mail notices were sent to the first mortgagee and a subsequent lien holder.
8. Notice was posted on the sign post in front of the Bethel Town CT Page 3562 Hall.
9. Notice was published in the Danbury News-Times for three consecutive weeks.
10. On January 17, 1992, notice of the sale was recorded on the land records. On January 18, 1992, a tax sale was conducted and the defendants purchased the property for $115,000.
11. A tax collector deed was prepared and executed and held in escrow until January 21, 1993, when the deed was recorded on the Bethel land records.
12. The sum of $78,819.15 remains in the town's escrow account.
There is no question that the tax collector did not mail to the plaintiff via certified mail, return receipt requested, Notice of Sale of land for taxes.
The testimony of the tax collector, however, which this court believes, is that she did mail notice by regular mail to the plaintiff on November 19, 1991.
The statutes does not require that notice be sent by certified mail and the fact that encumbrancers may have waived notice by certified mail certainly does not impose any duty on the tax collector to send similar notice to the plaintiff.
The recordation on the land records was not in strict compliance with Connecticut General Statutes §
All other efforts to comply with the requirements of Connecticut General Statutes §
Failure to record on time does not, however, invalidate the transaction unless the plaintiff proves that notice of sale was not mailed to him and that he did not have actual knowledge of the sale. Clearly, the court believes that notice was sent to him and that he had actual knowledge. Connecticut General Statutes §
The relief requested by the plaintiff is denied. Judgment may enter for the defendant. The escrow money, including all the interest accrued CT Page 3563 presently in account No. 0003593046 at the First Fidelity Bank, pursuant to the stipulation of the parties, is to be paid over to the plaintiff.
Mihalakos, J.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
1996 Conn. Super. Ct. 3561, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/john-mulqueen-associates-inc-v-miller-no-31-38-90-apr-18-1996-connsuperct-1996.