Town of Suffield v. Carrington

Connecticut Appellate Court

Town of Suffield v. Carrington

744 A.2d 914, 56 Conn. App. 441, 2000 Conn. App. LEXIS 33

CourtConnecticut Appellate Court

DecidedJanuary 25, 2000

DocketAC 19463

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 744 A.2d 914 (Town of Suffield v. Carrington) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Appellate Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Town of Suffield v. Carrington, 744 A.2d 914, 56 Conn. App. 441, 2000 Conn. App. LEXIS 33 (Colo. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

[442]*442 Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The defendants Franklyn H. Carrington and Carolyn R. Carrington appeal from the judgment of the trial court rendered after the granting of summary judgment in favor of the third party plaintiff, the Suffield water pollution control authority.

The genesis of this case was an action by the town of Suffield (town) to foreclose tax liens on the property of the defendants. The water pollution control authority was a defendant by virtue of hens for nonpayment of a sewer assessment and sewer use fees. See Practice Book § 10-69. When the town and the defendants settled their tax dispute, the water pollution control authority filed a cross complaint to foreclose its liens. At that point, the town withdrew its foreclosure action, leaving only the water pohution control authority’s cross complaint to be litigated.

On appeal, the defendants claim that the trial court improperly found that (1) their property had received benefits from the construction of a sewer system and (2) there were clear and undisputed facts showing that they had access to the sewer over their land.

The issues before this court were resolved in the trial court’s thoughtful and comprehensive memorandum of decision. Suffield v. Carrington, 46 Conn. Sup. 228, 744 A.2d 958 (1998). Because that memorandum of decision fully addresses the dispositive issues raised in this appeal, we adopt it as a proper statement of the facts and the applicable law. It would serve no useful purpose for us to repeat the discussion contained therein. In re Karrlo K., 40 Conn. App. 73, 75, 668 A.2d 1353 (1996).

The judgment is affirmed and the case is remanded for the purpose of setting a new sale date.

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

[442]*442 Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The defendants Franklyn H. Carrington and Carolyn R. Carrington appeal from the judgment of the trial court rendered after the granting of summary judgment in favor of the third party plaintiff, the Suffield water pollution control authority.

The genesis of this case was an action by the town of Suffield (town) to foreclose tax liens on the property of the defendants. The water pollution control authority was a defendant by virtue of hens for nonpayment of a sewer assessment and sewer use fees. See Practice Book § 10-69. When the town and the defendants settled their tax dispute, the water pollution control authority filed a cross complaint to foreclose its liens. At that point, the town withdrew its foreclosure action, leaving only the water pohution control authority’s cross complaint to be litigated.

On appeal, the defendants claim that the trial court improperly found that (1) their property had received benefits from the construction of a sewer system and (2) there were clear and undisputed facts showing that they had access to the sewer over their land.

The issues before this court were resolved in the trial court’s thoughtful and comprehensive memorandum of decision. Suffield v. Carrington, 46 Conn. Sup. 228, 744 A.2d 958 (1998). Because that memorandum of decision fully addresses the dispositive issues raised in this appeal, we adopt it as a proper statement of the facts and the applicable law. It would serve no useful purpose for us to repeat the discussion contained therein. In re Karrlo K., 40 Conn. App. 73, 75, 668 A.2d 1353 (1996).

The judgment is affirmed and the case is remanded for the purpose of setting a new sale date.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

744 A.2d 914, 56 Conn. App. 441, 2000 Conn. App. LEXIS 33, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/town-of-suffield-v-carrington-connappct-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack