Advance Release Opinions – Supreme Court – July 20

Reviews of Connecticut Supreme Court advance release opinions about administrative law and civil procedure.

Administrative Law

Kuchta v. Arisian – I list the topics alphabetically, and though I’m not sure that this case is really about administrative law, I wanted it to be first since it was in the news. Arisian hired Baybrook Remodelers, Inc. for some home improvements. She later put up a sign on her property confirming, “I Do Not Recommend Baybrook.” She also put up two other signs graphically (in the bar graph sense) representing, under the caption “BAYBROOK REMODELERS’ TOTAL LAWSUITS,” the number of cases in which Baybrook was supposedly a party. Kuchta, Milford’s zoning enforcement officer, ordered Arisian to remove the signs, claiming that they violated zoning regulations on the size, height, and number of signs. When Arisian did not comply, Kuchta sought an injunction in Superior Court. Arisian’s special defense was that Milford lacked authority to regulate her signs under CGS § 8-2 because they were not “advertising signs.” Trial court agreed that the signs were not advertising and denied the injunction. After lengthy analysis, the Supreme Court confirmed the signs were not “advertising signs” under § 8-2, which it defined as “any form of public announcement intended to aid directly or indirectly in the sale of goods or services, in the promulgation of a doctrine or idea, in securing attendance, or the like.”

But that’s not all. Kuchta had also sought to enjoin Arisian from occupying the property until she obtained a new certificate of occupancy, which required her to submit a new as-built plot plan. Arisian, of course, had been relying on Baybrook to do that. And, Baybrook, of course, did not. At the time the case had gone to trial more than four years later, Arisian had submitted the as-built, but it reflected a zoning violation, so the building department declined to issue the certificate of occupancy. Trial court denied the injunction because the circumstances did not justify that extraordinary remedy, but fined Arisian $1,000 for taking more than four years to submit a proper as-built. Supreme Court affirmed.

Walgreen Eastern Company, Inc. v. West Hartford – Real property tax appeal. Assessor set fair market value at $5,020,000. Board of Assessment appeals affirmed. Walgreen’s appealed to Superior Court, alleging one count under CGS § 12-117a that it was aggrieved because the assessor overvalued the property; and one count under CGS § 12-119 that the assessment was manifestly excessive. Trial court heard expert testimony and, on the § 12-117a claim, set fair market value at $4,900,000, and ordered West Hartford to correct any overpayment. Trial court denied the § 12-119 claim. Supreme Court affirmed on both claims, finding that trial court properly determined property’s true and actual value, and Walgreen’s had failed to establish assessment was manifestly excessive.

Can anyone tell me the practical difference between § 12-117a and § 12-119? They both seem to give the court the authority to reduce the assessment. It is not clear to me what more you get if the assessment is manifestly excessive.

Civil Procedure

Mendillo v. Tinley, Renehan & Dost, LLP – Mendillo is a lawyer who represented the plaintiff in an employment action against her former employer, a not-for-profit, and the not-for-profit’s executive director, and the chairperson of its board. The Tinley firm represented the defendants. Mendillo apparently communicated with other putative members of the not-for-profit’s board about the not-for-profit’s counterclaim in the employment action. The trial court in the employment action agreed with the Tinley firm’s assertion that Mendillo had violated Rule of Professional Conduct 4.2, and issued a protective order precluding Mendillo from further contact with board members absent the Tinley firm’s consent. Mendillo filed a writ of error, which the Appellate Court dismissed. Supreme Court denied certification, and also denied Mendillo’s motion for reconsideration of that denial. Mendillo filed a second writ of error in the Supreme Court challenging the Appellate Court’s actions. Supreme Court dismissed the second writ, and denied Mendillo’s motion for reconsideration en banc. So, Mendillo filed a new action against the Tinley firm and the Appellate Court, asserting multiple grounds for a declaratory judgment, all essentially attacking the protective order in the employment action. Trial court granted Appellate Court’s and the Tinley firm’s motion to dismiss. Supreme Court affirmed, finding that Mendillo’s claims were nonjusticiable: No practical relief was available to Mendillo because his declaratory judgment action was nothing more than a collateral attack on the protective order in the employment action, which had been fully and finally adjudicated on the first writ of error by the Appellate Court’s decision and the Supreme Court’s denial of certification.