Conn. Gen. Stat. § 12-119

Codifies common law rule; applies to unpaid taxes existing at time of passage even though time to appeal from doings of board had expired. 101 C. 390, 392. Methods of valuation. 122 C. 230. In action against him to collect tax, taxpayer cannot contest valuation; must seek relief under this section or Sec. 12-111 et seq. 123 C. 548. “Laid” means “imposed”. 124 C. 407. Section is for relief against illegal tax; procedure differs from appeal to board of tax review which is designed to act directly on valuations on grand list. 128 C. 649. What constitutes “manifestly excessive”; cannot enjoin assessors from raising assessment in future. Id., 674. Mere fact of overvaluation is not ground for relief under section; it is intended to take place of remedy in equity for illegal overvaluation and precludes resort to equity generally. 130 C. 703. Under section, function of court not limited to determining whether assessors acted illegally, arbitrarily or in abuse of discretion; statute designed to meet situations where there was misfeasance or nonfeasance, or assessment was arbitrary or so excessive or discriminatory as to show disregard for duty. 131 C. 273. Cited. 133 C. 22. “Owner” does not mean only owner on assessment date; possibility that he might become unduly enriched does not preclude right to test validity of assessment. Id., 238. State has no power to tax property of national banks under Sec. 12-59. 135 C. 191. Cited. 142 C. 634; 145 C. 375. Remedy given by section is not alternative to appeal from board of tax review and then from it to court under Sec. 12-118. 146 C. 165. Cited. 147 C. 287. Burden of proof on question whether property acquires tax situs within certain town is on plaintiff. Id., 308. Cited. 165 C. 211. The 1-year limitation on application to the Court of Common Pleas is procedural and may be waived by the town's failing to plead it. 167 C. 509. Cited. 168 C. 514. Judgment of assessor, not his employee, is focus of section; section does not remedy dispute over credibility of conflicting expert testimony. 169 C. 663. Cited. 170 C. 67; Id., 477. Whether or not the taxpayer was required to claim his exemption before the assessor under Sec. 12-89 would have no evidential significance in the proceeding under this statute; burden of proving the exemption is on the taxpayer. 192 C. 434. Cited. 193 C. 342; 195 C. 587; 196 C. 487; 199 C. 294; 200 C. 697; 212 C. 639. Focus of statute is whether the assessment is “illegal”. 220 C. 335. Decision of court requires that a declaratory judgment action predicated on the substantive rights of section be brought within 1 year of the date of assessment. 224 C. 110. Cited. 226 C. 407; 228 C. 23; Id., 375; Id., 476; 232 C. 335; 234 C. 169; 240 C. 422; Id., 475; 241 C. 749. Plaintiff's substantive claims were properly raised under section; court abandoned Cioffoletti rule requiring attacks on legislation to be brought as declaratory judgment actions. 245 C. 551. Subsequent title holder has no greater rights to challenge prior assessment than were possessed by its immediate assignor or by any prior assignee from the owner of a property at the time of assessment. 249 C. 1. Trial court's finding that floating docks and finger piers were fixtures and thus taxable property affirmed; determination re fixtures is a finding of fact and will not be overturned unless clearly erroneous. 253 C. 371. Section does not apply to a claim for reimbursement of property taxes paid by a charitable organization pursuant to Sec. 12-81b and Sec. 18-20 of the Danbury Code. Id., 531. Statute does not authorize a challenge to imposition of a conveyance tax; rather, statute clearly relates to taxes “laid on property”. 260 C. 406
finding of fact and will not be overturned unless clearly erroneous. 253 C. 371. Section does not apply to a claim for reimbursement of property taxes paid by a charitable organization pursuant to Sec. 12-81b and Sec. 18-20 of the Danbury Code. Id., 531. Statute does not authorize a challenge to imposition of a conveyance tax; rather, statute clearly relates to taxes “laid on property”. 260 C. 406. Claims that an assessor has misclassified property and, consequently, overvalued it, comprise a category of appeals frequently pursued under section; trial court's determination that assessor had illegally removed property's open space classification necessarily incorporated implicit finding that resultant assessment was manifestly excessive. 289 C. 723. Plaintiff failed to establish that town assessor's reliance on hypothetical condition in reaching valuation was illegal, and therefore cannot prevail on its claim of misfeasance or malfeasance of assessor's duty resulting in overvaluation of property. 308 C. 87.

Cited. 6 CA 330; 7 CA 496; 15 CA 513; Id., 752; 21 CA 275; 26 CA 545; 35 CA 269; 40 CA 64; 43 CA 169; 44 CA 494; Id., 517. Statute applies to owners of easements including flowage rights. 53 CA 142. Declaratory judgment action predicated on section is subject to section's 1-year statute of limitations. 54 CA 284. Statute allows taxpayer to challenge illegal assessment outside prior statutorily mandated revaluation period and such appeal does not constitute impermissible request for interim revaluation. 85 CA 480. Section creates cause of action for taxpayer aggrieved by excessive and wrongful valuation of property, but there is no private right of action for taxpayer against municipal officials in individual capacities for alleged wrongdoing in tax assessment of property not owned or leased by or directly connected to taxpayer. 119 CA 453. Defendant's counterclaim re stipulated agreement with city was improper as defendant should have sought to enforce its right to an exemption in a statutory action under section. 140 CA 663. Statute is not ambiguous, plain meaning of “the date as of which the property was last evaluated for purposes of taxation” means the assessment date of October first. 168 CA 703. The one year limitation is not subject to a balancing of equities and the remedy provided by the section takes the place of the remedy in equity. Id. Common law unjust enrichment claim unavailable to plaintiff whose property was overtaxed for 25 years as claims are time limited under statutory scheme whether excess taxes are paid due to clerical errors, improper property valuations, or “manifestly excessive'' assessments. 211 CA 441.

Fair and actual value is not to be found at depression's bottom nor at prosperity's top. 4 CS 69. Superior Court will not inquire into an assessment in an action to collect unpaid taxes. Id., 391. Assessment is the total of all the taxable items and it does not follow that it is “manifestly excessive” because a single item is overvalued. 5 CS 467. Cited. 8 CS 540. Voluntary payment during pendency of application for relief does not preclude right to refund for excess. Id., 295. Relief from assessment not precluded by payment made before application filed. 9 CS 524. Valuation other than “true and actual” is illegal. 11 CS 480. Remedy different than that under Sec. 12-118; it is directed against the collection of an illegal tax. 12 CS 382. Declaratory judgment is one of the other “remedies”. 14 CS 119. Equitable remedy for overvaluation in assessment is precluded. 16 CS 48. Taxpayer claiming to be aggrieved by assessment of tax under Sec. 12-58 may seek relief as provided by this section or Sec. 12-118 or may pay the tax, under proper protest, and sue to recover such money as was illegally paid. He may not, in an action to collect the tax, contest the valuation placed on his property. 25 CS 467. Cited. 32 CS 82. Discussed. Id., 139. Cited. 39 CS 142; 43 CS 297.