Page 33 - CLT060721

CONNECTICUT OPINIONS JUNE 7, 2021 ■ 33
Indians, a federally recognized tribe, was secre- on June 2, 2014. The assessor delayed impos-
tary and treasurer. Following an investigation, ing penalties until April 29, 2016. Plaintiffs filed
defendant Commissioner of Banking found complaints in the trial court and the trial court
that plaintiffs had violated state laws by mak- found for defendant. The Appellate Court re-
ing small consumer loans to state residents via versed the trial court’s judgment, holding that
the internet without a license to do so. Defen- tax penalties imposed without statutory author-
dant issued temporary cease and desist orders to ity are invalid. Defendant petitioned for certi-
plaintiffs. Plaintiffs filed a motion to dismiss the fication and the court granted it, affirming the
administrative proceedings for lack of jurisdic- Appellate Court’s judgment. The issue before
tion. They argued that the entities are arms of the court was whether the assessor for defendant
the tribe entitled to tribal sovereign immunity must impose late filing penalties on taxpayers
and that Shotton’s involvement in the affairs before taking and subscribing to the oath on the
of the entities was within his official capacity, grand list for that assessment year pursuant to
therefore entitling him to sovereign immunity as the law, or may impose the penalties later. The
well. The Commissioner denied the motion to court held that the penalties imposed under the
dismiss. Plaintiffs filed an administrative appeal statute were required by law, and the assessor
and the court remanded the case to the Commis- did not have the statutory authority to impose
sioner. The Commissioner again denied plain- the penalties after taking the oath and subscrib-
tiffs motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs appealed and ing to the 2014 grand list. Because the assessor’s
the trial court sustained their administrative ap- decision to omit the penalties was deliberate and
peal, remanding the case to defendant. Plaintiffs intentional, the assessor lacked authority to im-
appealed and the court reversed in part. Plain- pose the penalties; therefore, defendant may not
tiffs claimed that the trial court should have ren- collect the penalties at issue.
dered judgment in their favor. They argued that
the lower court improperly allocated the burden APPELLATE COURT
of proving entitlement to tribal sovereign im-
munity to plaintiffs, required proof of a func-
tioning relationship between the entities and the
tribe, and failed to find Shotton immune. The LITIGATION • CIVIL PROCEDURE
court held that the entity claiming arm of the
tribe status bore the burden of proving its en- Court Affirmed Lower Court’s Granting
titlement to that status under the test articulated of Summary Judgment in Vexatious
by the 10 Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals.
th
The court also held that plaintiff was an arm of Litigation Lawsuit
the tribe and that Shotton, with respect to his CASE: Rousseau v. Weinstein
capacity as an officer of the tribe and plaintiff, COURT: Connecticut Appellate Court
was entitled to tribal sovereign immunity from DOC. NO.: AC 42902
civil penalties but not injunctive relief. COURT OPINION BY: Alvord

DATE: May 25, 2021 • PAGES: 20
TAX Plaintiffs, Rousseau and Preferred Display sought
to recover damages from defendants, Rousseau’s
Town Assessor Lacked Authority to former spouse Madeleine Perricone and her at-
Impose Penalties torneys, for vexatious litigation. Rousseau and
Perricone had been previously married and in
CASE: Wilton Campus 1691 LLC v. Town of Wilton 2010, Rousseau commenced a dissolution action.
COURT: Connecticut Supreme Court Perricone filed a cross complaint. In 2011, Per-
DOC. NO.: SC 20388 ricone retained defendant attorneys to assist with
COURT OPINION BY: D’Auria the dissolution action and to file a civil action
DATE: May 26, 2021 • PAGES: 17 against plaintiffs alleging essentially the same
Plaintiffs owned commercial properties that op- claims that she had made in the dissolution ac-
erated at a retail shopping center. Pursuant to tion. After a trial in the dissolution action, the
statute, they were supposed to submit annual court dissolved the marriage between Rousseau
income and expense reports for 2013 to the as- and Perricone and found that Rousseau had not
sessor on or before June 1. They failed to do so engaged in financial misconduct as alleged by
and instead sent the reports by overnight mail Perricone. Perricone appealed the dissolution
CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune