Background
Stephen McCullough acquired real property in Rocky Hill in 2009 and failed to pay property taxes for approximately fourteen years. The town initiated a statutory tax foreclosure sale scheduled for April 20, 2023. McCullough filed a complaint seeking a temporary injunction and declaratory relief, alleging the town improperly demanded payment of the 2009 tax year and that the tax collector had wrongfully failed to accept his partial payments. He claimed a 2009 tax lien had been discharged.
The trial court denied the temporary injunction, finding McCullough failed to satisfy the statutory requirements under General Statutes § 12-159 for enjoining a tax sale. The property sold at auction on April 20, 2023, for $150,000. The trial court then struck McCullough’s initial complaint, and later struck his substitute complaint, on the ground that neither stated a claim for relief under § 12-159. The town was awarded $3,540 in attorney’s fees. McCullough appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The appellate court dismissed as moot the portion of the appeal challenging the trial court’s judgment striking McCullough’s complaint. The court reasoned that McCullough could not receive practical relief consistent with the relief requested in his complaint because (1) his tax liabilities were fully satisfied by the tax sale proceeds deposited with the court, and (2) McCullough had failed to pursue the appropriate statutory remedies available to taxpayers, such as seeking a refund under General Statutes § 12-129, discharging a lien under General Statutes § 49-51, or challenging the sale under § 12-159. By attempting to circumvent the tax statutes through a declaratory judgment action rather than using the prescribed procedures, McCullough attempted to evade the state’s taxation scheme.
The court affirmed the award of attorney’s fees to the town. Under § 12-140, a municipality may recover attorney’s fees incurred in defending civil actions brought as a result of a tax sale. The court found McCullough failed to provide any basis on which to conclude the trial court abused its discretion in awarding fees, as the town was defending an action arising from its tax foreclosure proceeding.
Key Takeaways
- Taxpayers challenging tax foreclosure sales must use the specific statutory remedies provided by Connecticut law (redemption, refund requests, lien discharges, or § 12-159 challenges based on notice failure or improper liability to sale), not broad declaratory judgment actions.
- A case seeking relief regarding disputed taxes becomes moot when the tax sale proceeds have fully satisfied the claimed liabilities and the taxpayer has not pursued proper statutory procedures.
- Municipalities may recover attorney’s fees under § 12-140 when defending civil actions arising from tax sales, and courts will affirm such awards absent a showing of abuse of discretion.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces Connecticut’s strong statutory framework protecting municipal tax foreclosures from collateral attacks. The court emphasized that public policy disfavors perpetual litigation over taxes and requires taxpayers to follow prescribed remedies rather than seeking equitable relief through declaratory judgments. For municipalities, the decision confirms that attorney’s fees incurred defending tax sale litigation are recoverable and not easily challenged on appeal.
For individual taxpayers, the ruling makes clear that attempting to bypass the statutory scheme—whether by disputing the amount owed, alleging misconduct by tax collectors, or raising constitutional concerns—will be futile unless pursued through the specific statutory procedures. A taxpayer’s failure to redeem within six months, combined with failure to file timely refund applications or pursue administrative remedies, forecloses judicial review of the underlying tax liability.