DeSena v. Waterbury
In DeSena v. Waterbury, 249 Conn. 63, 82, 731 A.2d 733 (1999), the plaintiff requested an interim revaluation because he had ceased operation of a nursing home on the property, the property's value had substantially declined and the assessment was greatly excessive, disproportionate and unlawful. Id., 71.
The plaintiff in DeSena argued that a change in the use of the property, specifically contemplated by the Ralston Purina Co. court, entitled him to an interim revaluation. Id., 73.
The court rejected the argument and held that 12-64a prescribed the unique circumstance that would require an interim revaluation. Id., 87.
The Court considered whether 12-55 "which authorizes an assessor to equalize tax lists by making interim adjustments in assessments, likewise affords the taxpayer a vehicle by which to compel such interim adjustments." Id., at 87-88. The court first "noted that the plain language of the statute confers upon assessors the broad power to equalize tax lists, 'if necessary.'" Id., at 88.
In concluding that the statute may not be used as a vehicle to compel interim revaluations, the court further stated: "In 84 Century Ltd. Partnership v. Board of Tax Review, supra, 207 Conn. at 251, the court held that 12-55 permits assessors to conduct interim revaluations. All of this court's discussions of the statute, both prior and subsequent to the decision in that case, support the proposition that 12-55 is permissive rather than mandatory in nature. This proposition is supported by the plain language of the statute as well as the revaluation scheme as set forth in the statutes. Neither the arguments advanced by the defendant nor the opinion of the trial court contains persuasive reasoning compelling us to conclude otherwise. We conclude, therefore, that although 12-55 permits assessors to conduct interim revaluations of property, it cannot be used to compel such revaluations." Id., 91.
Thus, the court reaffirmed the principle that 12-55 permits an assessor to conduct an interim revaluation.