Metro. Dist. Comm'n v. Marriott Int'l, Inc.

216 Conn.App. 154

284 A.3d 985

The METROPOLITAN DISTRICT COMMISSION

v.MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC., et al.

AC 44790

Appellate Court of Connecticut.

Argued March 9, 2022

Officially Released October 25, 2022

John W. Cerreta, Hartford, with whom, on the brief, were Hannah F. Kalichman and William J. Sweeney, for the appellant (plaintiff).

John C. Pitblado, Hartford, with whom, on the brief, was Brendan N. Gooley, for the appellee (named defendant).

Prescott, Elgo and Cradle, Js.

PRESCOTT, J.

The plaintiff, the Metropolitan District Commission, a municipal water control authority, elected to pursue two separate and distinct legal avenues to recoup costs associated with the construction, connection, and use of certain sewer improvements that it authorized as part of the Adriaen's Landing development project in Hartford. First, it brought the civil action from which this appeal arises against the defendant Marriott International, Inc.,¹ in which it alleged breach of contract and unjust enrichment. Second, the plaintiff initiated a separate administrative proceeding pursuant to General Statutes §§ 7-249² and 7-254 (b),³ in which it imposed a sewer benefit assessment on the Marriott Harford Downtown property at 200 Columbus Boulevard. We are asked to decide in the present appeal whether the trial court in the civil action improperly ordered in a postjudgment proceeding the discharge of a sewer benefit assessment lien perfected against the Marriott Hartford Downtown property as a result of the contemporaneous and unchallenged administrative action.

The plaintiff appeals from the court's ruling on a combined motion for contempt and application to discharge lien that the defendant filed after the court had rendered summary judgment in favor of the defendant on the plaintiff's complaint in the underlying civil action. Although the court declined to hold the plaintiff in contempt, it ordered the discharge of a lien that the plaintiff had filed on the land records regarding the Marriott Hartford Downtown property during the pendency of the civil action to enforce an unpaid and unchallenged sewer benefit assessment levied by the plaintiff. The plaintiff claims on appeal that the trial court's order discharging the lien "exceed[ed] its jurisdiction" and constituted an "unlawful end run around [General Statutes] § 7-250,"⁴ which, the plaintiff argues, is the " ‘exclusive remedy available’ for challenging sewer benefit assessments," quoting Vaill v. Sewer Commission , 168 Conn. 514, 519, 362 A.2d 885 (1975).

The defendant responds that we should affirm the trial court's decision because the court had the jurisdiction and/or authority to order the lien discharged either pursuant to its continuing jurisdiction to effectuate its summary judgment decision rendered in favor of the defendant or pursuant to General Statutes § 49-51, which grants the Superior Court authority to discharge "any certificate of lien ...." (Emphasis added.) General Statutes § 49-51 (a).⁵ Alternatively, the defendant argues that the court's action may be affirmed on the grounds of res judicata and/or judicial estoppel. We conclude that the trial court lacked authority to entertain in the civil action any challenge to the propriety of the sewer benefit assessment underlying the lien and that, even if we assume without deciding that the court had some limited authority to consider an application to discharge the lien, the court improperly did so under the facts and circumstances presented. Because we agree with the plaintiff that the court improperly ordered the lien discharged, we reverse in part the judgment of the court and remand the matter with direction to deny the defendant's postjudgment motion in its entirety.

The following procedural history and facts, which either are undisputed in the summary judgment record or found by the court in its ruling on the defendant's postjudgment motion, are relevant to our review of the plaintiff's claim on appeal. In 2001, the plaintiff entered into a developer permit agreement with the state of Connecticut, acting through the Office of Policy and Management (state). The agreement authorized the state to construct and install a new sanitary sewer main within Adriaen's Landing, a planned, mixed-use development project along the riverfront in downtown Hartford. The state, through one of its subcontractors, constructed the authorized sewer main, which included the construction of a lateral sewer line that extended from the newly constructed sewer main to the present site of the Marriott Hartford Downtown hotel. After the hotel was constructed, the hotel's sewer service pipe was connected to the lateral sewer line. The Marriott Hartford Downtown opened and began operating in August, 2005.⁶

In April, 2018, the plaintiff commenced the underlying civil action against the defendant and the state. The operative complaint contained four counts. Counts one and three sounded in breach of contract and unjust enrichment against the state. Counts two and four sounded in breach of contract and unjust enrichment against the defendant. According to the complaint, the Marriott Hartford Downtown's connection to the sewer main via the lateral line was performed without a permit or any inspection by the plaintiff, and, consequently, under the terms of the agreement between the plaintiff and the state, the state remained liable for all maintenance and repairs of the sewer main. The complaint further stated that, despite various attempts by the plaintiff to collect outstanding charges and repairs totaling $312,885, the state had failed to pay the plaintiff. These same allegations formed the basis for the unjust enrichment count against the state.

With regard to the two counts brought against the defendant, the complaint, without referencing any specific agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant, alleged that the plaintiff provides "sanitary sewer services" to the Marriott Hartford Downtown and that the defendant "has never paid for sewer use charges," the fair value of which the plaintiff alleged totals $312,885. The complaint did not expressly allege that the defendant owed the plaintiff for charges or fees associated with the hotel's connection to the sewer main via the lateral line.⁷

The civil action was transferred to the complex litigation docket in June, 2018. For the next two years, the defendant, with the consent of all parties, sought and was granted numerous modifications to the court's initial scheduling order regarding the filing of responsive pleadings. Eventually, on July 13, 2020, the state filed a motion to dismiss all counts against it on sovereign immunity grounds,⁸ and the defendant filed an answer to the complaint and special defenses. One of the special defenses asserted by the defendant alleged that the breach of contract and unjust enrichment counts against it were barred by General Statutes § 52-576, the applicable statute of limitations.⁹

During this period of relative inactivity in the civil action, the plaintiff elected to exercise its administrative prerogative under § 7-249 ; see footnote 2 of this opinion; and levied a special benefit assessment on the Marriott Hartford Downtown property. More specifically, in February, 2020, before any responsive pleading had been filed in the civil action, the plaintiff issued a notice of public hearing and a schedule of assessment to the defendant as well as to several other entities that the plaintiff had identified as possibly having "an ownership interest in the real property or responsibility for any sewer assessment against the real property ...."¹⁰

The plaintiff held a public hearing on February 26, 2020, which was attended by counsel representing the defendant in the underlying civil action. In June, 2020, the plaintiff levied a sewer benefit assessment of $312,885 against the defendant, which was the same amount that it sought as damages in the pending civil action.

Significantly, neither the defendant nor any entity associated with the ownership or management of the Marriott Hartford Downtown property exercised or attempted to exercise its right to appeal the plaintiff's assessment pursuant to § 7-250. Thus, despite an opportunity to raise any challenge to the assessment at that time, the defendant elected to remain silent. Furthermore, neither party informed the trial court about the existence of the assessment proceedings. The assessment went unpaid, and a lien was filed on the land records regarding the Marriott Hartford Downtown property in accordance with § 7-254 (b) in the amount of $318,600.55.¹¹

In October, 2020, the defendant filed a motion in the civil action seeking summary judgment on both counts of the complaint against it. It argued that the plaintiff's breach of contract and unjust enrichment counts were barred by the applicable statute of limitations and, alternatively, that the plaintiff, effectively, had sued the wrong party because no legal relationship on which to find liability existed between the plaintiff and the defendant. On January 29, 2021, the trial court, Schuman, J. , granted the defendant's motion and rendered summary judgment in favor of the defendant on both counts of the plaintiff's complaint asserted against it.

In its memorandum of decision, the court explained that the six year statute of limitations in § 52-576 (a) applied to both counts¹² and that the undisputed evidence presented by the defendant showed that any contractual or equitable obligation the defendant might have had to pay a sewer connection charge accrued sometime before September, 2005, meaning that the plaintiff should have filed its civil action before September, 2011. The court principally relied on an affidavit that the defendant filed in support of the motion for summary judgment that was sworn by Raj Dansinghani, the chief financial officer of Waterford Group, LLC, an entity that Dansinghani averred manages the Marriott Hartford Downtown. As stated...