Accusations, Debts Mount In Clock Shop Debacle

Grand visions of a new community rising from the ashes of the old Hamilton Street clock factory have disintegrated into a foreclosure lawsuit — and finger-pointing between an Oregon-based developer and the Elicker Administration about why it all fell apart.

Those are the latest legal twists and turns with the former New Haven Clock Company factory complex at 133 Hamilton St.

The 150,000 square-foot former clock factory complex is owned by Taom Heritage New Haven LLC, a holding company controlled by the Portland, Oregon-based development firm Reed Community Partners, which bought the decaying post-industrial property in 2018 for $1.4 million.

According to recent legal filings in an ongoing tax foreclosure lawsuit waged by the city against the redeveloper, Taom Heritage now owes more than $223,000 in back taxes and interest on the property after more than three years of allegedly dodging its municipal tax bills.

That same redeveloper, meanwhile, has now argued that the city is to blame for its uncollected tax debts on this property — because the Elicker Administration allegedly has not sent Taom Heritage monies City Hall had previously promised for the property.

All of this comes after Taom Heritage won various government approvals in 2018 to convert the 1840’s-built complex into 130 new affordable apartments.

Based on the property’s general appearance of neglect — not least of which being a pile of trash sitting outside of the factory’s back entrance on Wallace Street as recently as Wednesday — the developer looks to have left the factory complex to stagnate. 

A March 8 lawsuit filed by city government, meanwhile, argues that the developer has also not paid local property taxes on 133 Hamilton St. in over three years. 

Click here to read a previous article in the Independent from June 3 about the tax foreclosure lawsuit, a spate of anti-blight and building safety citations of the Hamilton Street property, and the redeveloper’s promise that — despite all outward appearances — this factory-to-apartments conversion project is still going to happen.

Redeveloper: City "Refused" To Disburse "Certain Monies"

After delaying to respond to this tax foreclosure lawsuit for a long enough period of time to warrant a default for non-appearance from the court, Taom Heritage-hired and Hartford-based attorney Jay Lawlor filed to represent the landlord in this case on June 9.

And on Sept. 22, Lawlor filed a five-page answer and special defense to the city’s tax foreclosure lawsuit that offers the most substantive argument from the redeveloper to date as to why it hasn’t paid their taxes.

In that document, Lawlor generally denied all of the city’s allegations. In regard to each year’s purportedly overdue taxes, Lawlor wrote: ​“As to the balance: Taom Heritage lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the allegation and therefore leaves Plaintiff to its proof.”

In the ​“special defenses” section of Taom Heritage’s court filing, Lawlor argues that the court should throw out the city’s tax lien foreclosure lawsuit because the city allegedly acted improperly by refusing to disburse unspecified government-promised funds to the landlord.

Here’s how Lawlor phrased that defense: ​“The tax lien foreclosure, an equitable action, should be barred by the doctrine of unclean hands, as plaintiff has refused, without valid basis and in bad faith, to disburse to defendant certain monies due and owing defendant, which defendant required, and which plaintiff on information and belief knew defendant required, to pay the subject real estate taxes. But for plaintiff’s conduct, the subject real estate taxes would have been paid and the liens being foreclosed in this action would not exist.”

The Independent asked Lawlor by email what allegedly undisbursed public funds he was referring to in that special defense filing. What exactly has the city allegedly withheld?

Lawlor replied: ​“As a general policy, our office does not comment on pending litigation. Taom Heritage’s opposition to the city’s motion will be filed in due course. It will speak for itself.”

While Lawlor did not specify exactly what pot of money he was referring to, back in 2018, the city did approve $400,000 in city funds and $800,000 in city-managed federal funds for environmental remediation at the radium-contaminated property. That was in addition to a $4 million state loan for environmental remediation and a seven-year local tax abatement. 

A city spokesperson did not provide a comment by the publication time of this article when asked by the Independent how much of those city-managed environmental funds have been disbursed for this project so far.

City: $223,018 Owed In Back Taxes, Interest

In a motion for summary judgment filed on Tuesday, city-hired attorney Christine Ciociola argued that the court should immediately find in the city’s favor.

Attached as an exhibit to that motion is an affidavit and ​“delinquent statement” accounting ledger submitted by city Tax Collector Maureen Villani that shows that Taom Heritage owes a total of $223,018 in back taxes and interest. 

That includes $39,334 for Grand List 2018, $73,182 for Grand List 2019, $69,963 for Grand List 2020, and $40,537 for Grand List 2021 so far. (Each Grand List year’s taxes are due the following July 1 and Jan. 1. So, for example, half of Grand List 2021’s real estate taxes was due on July 1, 2022, and the other half is due on Jan. 1, 2023.)

“The purpose of summary judgment procedure is to allow the Court to prevent vexatious and dilatory tactics and to facilitate the expeditious disposition of cases,” Ciociola wrote in a memorandum in support of the city’s motion. She then quoted from a 1989 state court decision to illustrate the legal purpose of summary judgments: ​“Motions for summary judgment are designed to eliminate the delay and expense incident to a trial when there is no real issue to be tried.”

Which is exactly the case here, she wrote.

The city has authority under state law to assess, levy and collect real estate taxes on properties in its jurisdiction, Ciociola wrote. It also has the state-given power to place liens on properties for assessed taxes that have not been paid.

“In the present matter, there is no genuine issue of material fact that the City has assessed taxes for the Grand Lists of 2018, 2019 and 2020, that said taxes are due and that said taxes are unpaid in full,” she wrote. There is also no dispute as to whether or not Taom Heritage owns the property in question — and is therefore the property owner that owes the unpaid taxes to the city.

As for the special defense that the defendant has put forward so far in this case, Ciociola continued, none of Taom Heritage’s arguments qualify as a legally sufficient rebuttal to a tax foreclosure lawsuit. Such qualifying defenses could include ​“payment discharge, release, satisfaction and invalidity of a lien” or ​“mistake, accident, fraud, CUTPA, laches, tender of deed in lieu of foreclosure and a refusal to a favorable sale to a third party”.

“In this case,” Ciociola wrote, ​“the Defendant has not properly asserted any of the aforementioned traditional or equitable defenses in support of a valid attack on the making, validity or enforcement of the lien. Instead, the Defendant has asserted conclusory statements and misstatements of fact and law that do not give rise to valid defenses in a foreclosure action.”

What about Taom Heritage’s accusation that the city has acted with ​“unclean hands” in its dealings with the property owner?

“In the present matter before the Court, the Defendants’ special defense as pled fails to assert any misconduct with regard to the subject matter in litigation, namely the assessment, creation and enforcement of the subject tax liens,” Ciociola wrote. ​“Instead, the Defendant relies upon conclusory statements that seemingly arise from a separate transaction wholly unconnected to the subject matter of the tax foreclosure. Even viewing the statements in light most favorable to the Defendant, the Defendant has offered nothing to support its allegations that the Plaintiff engaged in supposed willful misconduct.”

She continued by arguing that Taom Heritage ​“is the party that failed to pay the tax debt and is now attempting to use allegations that are irrelevant to this action to attempt to bar the Plaintiff’s recovery of the security which is granted to it.”

She concluded by repeating her argument that there’s really nothing to debate here. ​“The Defendant has not raised a valid special defense or any issue of material fact regarding its liability by the pleaded answer and special defenses. The Plaintiff has the right to assess taxes on the Property, such assessed taxes have not been paid in full, the Plaintiff has tax liens on the Property for the assessed and unpaid real estate taxes and the lien[s] may be foreclosed. The Defendant is the owner of the Property and the equitable right of redemption and is therefore liable for the assessed and unpaid taxes. There are no issues of material fact.

“Therefore, in according with the foregoing reasons, and upon the foregoing authorities, as the Defendant has failed to produce sufficient evidence to raise any genuine issue of material fact for trial in this instance, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that Summary Judgment as to liability only enter as to the Defendant on the allegations of its complaint.”