Town Wins Massey Case

M90o93H7pQ09L8X1t49cHY01Z5j4TT91fGfr

The ruling put to rest the longest and perhaps costliest property tax court case in the town’s history.

The case revolved around a 2006 property tax settlement between the Masseys and the town of Branford. The Masseys signed the settlement, then took the town to court in an effort to break free of the agreement. They said the settlement language was in progress and not complete because it did not include legal releases precluding future lawsuits between the parties.

In a strongly worded 12-page decision issued Wednesday, the three-member appellate bench ruled that the town’s 2006 property tax settlement with the couple was complete. The court said the settlement was valid and enforceable. Another appellate panel came to the same decision in June, but that decision was vacated.

The three-member panel included two sitting appellate court judges and one former Supreme Court judge, Ellen Peters, the former chief of the Connecticut Supreme Court and an expert in contract law. She is now retired and occasionally sits on the Appellate bench.

Justice Peters wrote the opinion. At the end of her decision, she said, in effect, enough is enough.

“In light of the unconditional settlement agreement between the parties, the plaintiffs are barred from further pursuit of their tax claims against the defendants in any forum,” she wrote.

Whether ​“any forum” includes the Connecticut Supreme Court is not clear. Presumably the Masseys have the right to seek review of today’s decision before the state’s highest court. But whether the high court would take the case is another matter, especially given instructions from its former chief judge.

Mrs. Massey could not be reached for comment today.

The decision ends a contentious case that has involved numerous and voluminous filings in a variety of courts and before the Freedom of Information Commission. The key issue in the case, the assertion that Branford has a dual property tax system, was never adjudicated.

The case has cost the town more than $200,000 in legal fees. It has been heard in five different courts up and down the state. It has involved seven different law firms and roughly a dozen outside and inside town lawyers. All were hired to oppose the Masseys, who acted as pro-se attorneys, representing themselves.

Mrs. Massey has sought to undo a settlement she reached with former town counsel Shelley Marcus because it did not include a release from Trista Clyne Milici . Her husband, Michael Milici, former outside part-time assessor for Branford, was the person who inspected the Massey home and placed it in a ​“custom” category. Mrs. Massey disputes the classification. Michael Milici is a named defendant in the case.

Since 2003 the litigation has centered on Clyne, who is the chief assistant of First Selectman Anthony DaRos and has served five prior first selectman for nearly 15 years.

The Masseys say in court papers that Clyne transferred her allegiance from the town to Milici when the two began dating in December, 2005. They subsequently married. She has served as the administration’s gatekeeper for freedom of information requests. As a result, they say Clyne failed to provide documents in a timely way that would help identify the houses Milici assessed for the town, including houses he himself owned.

Clyne derailed the settlement efforts in 2006 when she refused to sign the standard release form that is designed to preclude future litigation evolving from a current lawsuit.

Justice Peters agreed with town lawyers that even if the agreement had contemplated releases ​“it could not in any case have bound Clyne to its terms because Clyne was not a party to the litigation.” The judge called the releases ​“typically incidental between the parties once a settlement is reached.”

The appellate court did not rule on a second case in which Trista Clyne Milici is a named defendant. That ruling is expected soon.

The Massey appeal centered on the argument that without a provision for releases, the settlement agreement was unenforceable because it was incomplete.

Mrs. Massey, an accounting professor, asserted judicial bias by Lynda Munro, the complex litigation judge who heard the case and made the major rulings. Judge Peters addressed the issue and rejected it.

The Massey’s disagreement ​“with the court’s management of this litigation does not establish their claim of judicial bias on the part of the court,” she wrote.

At oral argument in September, William H.Clendenen, Jr., the town’s counsel, defended and praised Judge Munro and said she had been wrongly attacked. Massey argued that Judge Munro should not have sat on her case because the outside law firm representing the town of Branford in the Massey case also represented one of her family members in another case.

Clendenen defended the judge, saying she had an impeccable reputation.

As for the legal releases, he told the court: ​“Nowhere, nowhere is there any reference to any provision or requirement of any releases from anyone. Clearly the agreement recites consideration for both parties. The record is clear that on July 3rd, when the parties were meeting, marking their trial exhibits for a trial due to begin July 10, during this meeting, this settlement was reached. The settlement was read aloud and each page initialed.”

The appellate court unanimously agreed with Clendenen. 

Clendenen told the Eagle today: ​“I think on behalf of the town, the town is happy that the matter is over and that it has been resolved with finality…. I am personally pleased that I was able to convince a judge of her caliber of our position.” 

At oral arguments last September, Mrs. Massey said that legal billing invoices filed by prior town attorneys show the case had not been finalized.

One of the town’s prior lawyers made 42 entries for legal bills over a seven-day period, beginning July 3, 2006. His language shows that while there may have been a settlement in principle there were still conditions to be worked out. 

On July 3 the lawyer billed for a telephone conference with Mr. Milici ​“re: terms of conditional settlement with the Masseys; discuss next step to consummate settlement deal.” On July 5 he billed for ​“draft release and settlement agreement.” On July 5, he billed for ​“correspondence to Dawn Massey re: proposed settlement document and next steps to consummate deal.” On July 7 he billed for a ​“review e‑mail from Atty. Shelley Marcus re: suggestions and modifications concerning settlement documents.”

On July 7 he billed for a review of Dawn Massey’s ​“amended supplemental release and settlement agreement…“and on the same day billed for a telephone call from Ms. Marcus ​“re review of plaintiffs’ revised settlement documents.”

Mrs. Massey told the court in September: ​“Given those billing statements, defendants and their counsel have unclean hands. I ask the court to reverse the judgment. And to remand the case to trial before an unbiased court.” 

But Justice Peters found the lower court was unbiased. She made no reference in her decision to the lawyer’s statements accompanying his legal invoices. Like Clendenen at oral argument, she ignored them.

Clendenen said in court that the settlement was ​“completely enforceable. Settlement agreements are enforced otherwise you have litigation within litigation within litigation.”

Justice Peters seemed to agree, saying, right, no more litigation against this town.

##