Elstein v. City of Milford, No. Cv92-0040452s (Feb. 28, 1997)
Opinion of the Court
The plaintiff's attorney approached his claim of overassessment by claiming shorefront property was improperly assessed with prejudice because of the access to the waterfront. The court made a survey of prominent real estate brokers to determine if shorefront property had a unique value because of the presence of access to the water. In each and every case, this court was informed that waterfront property is generally valued at a much higher rate based upon the fact that it is waterfront property.
The evidence in the transcript indicates there is no dispute with the value as established by the assessor on October 1, 1991 which was $393,000. That has been admitted but the dispute lies in the fact that the assessor of the City of Milford appraised waterfront property against non-waterfront property and that appears to be the only bottom line dispute. At no time did either side utilize the cost approach but only comparable sales and other property valuations. Mr. Gaffney, the appraiser for the City of Milford stated he did use the cost approach but it was never introduced in the evidence at trial. There is a great disparity of the sale of this property in question at a prior date and the present valuation.
The court ignoring the argument of the plaintiff that there CT Page 1611 is no disparity between waterfront and non-waterfront property nevertheless based upon the evidence and the comparable sales approach does reduce the land value by $10,000. Therefore, judgment is entered that the assessment for the dwelling shall remain the same but the land value shall be reduced by $10,000, without costs to either party. The City of Milford shall reduce the assessment accordingly and give tax credit to the plaintiff on future tax lists.
Philip E. Mancini, Jr. Judge Referee
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.