JJT&M v. Oxford

7/27/2019 JJT&M v. Oxford

1/9

Willcutts Law Group, LLC Attorneys at Law 285 Farmington Avenue Hartford, CT 06105 (860) 524-6800 Juris # 412755

RET. DATE JULY 16, 2013

JJT & M, INC. : SUPERIOR COURT

v. : J. D. at MILFORD

TOWN OF OXFORD : JUNE 20, 2013

COMPLAINT

COUNT ONE (Slander of Title Town of Oxford)

1. The plaintiff, JJT & M, Inc., is a Connecticut corporation that, for all times

relevant hereto, was and is the rightful owner of a parcel of commercial real estate

located at 66 Hawley Road, Oxford, CT (the property).

2. Said property includes a commercial building that was designed and

constructed for the purpose of supporting satellite telecommunication operations, and

the plaintiff purchased the property with the intention of using it for such business

purposes.

3. For all relevant times set forth herein, Karen Guillet was the Tax Collector

for the defendant Town of Oxford (the Town), and in said position she was an officer,

employee and/or agent of the Town with respect to the assessment and collection of

real estate property taxes on real property situated in the Town, including the plaintiffs

property, and the Town authorized Guillet to act on its behalf in collecting real estate

taxes on Town property

4. For all relevant times set forth herein, the Town benefitted financially from

Town property owners complying with the directives and instructions issued by Guillet

as to the payment of real estate taxes on their properties and the Town actively


2/9

- 2 -


encouraged its property owners to comply with said directives and instructions issued

by Guillet.

5. For all relevant times set forth herein, Guillet engaged in a scheme to

defraud various Town property owners by manipulating and altering real estate tax

assessments, by failing to credit property owners for payments submitted in payment of

their real estate tax bills, and/or by stealing taxpayer funds (hereinafter the tax fraud

scheme).

6. As a direct consequence of Guillets tax fraud scheme, numerous Town

residents were issued real estate tax bills by the Town that were inflated, false and

fraudulent.

7. The plaintiff was a victim of Guillets tax fraud scheme, and as a direct

consequence of said tax fraud scheme, the Town issued real estate tax bills to the

plaintiff that were inflated, false and fraudulent.

8. When the plaintiff began protesting and resisting its real estate tax bills

that it perceived to be inflated and erroneous, the Town caused tax liens to be recorded

against the plaintiffs property on the Town land records, and said tax lien recordings

were false and fraudulent, as they were based upon inflated, false and fraudulent tax

bills, and they were derogatory to the plaintiffs title to the property. The Town, acting

through the office of Tax Collector, knew that said tax liens were false and fraudulent or

caused them to be recorded with a reckless disregard as to whether they were false,

and the Town thereby acted with malice towards the plaintiff in recording false tax liens

against the plaintiffs property.

9. When the plaintiff continued to protest and resist its real estate tax bills

that it perceived to be inflated and erroneous, the Town further caused a lis pendens of

a foreclosure action to be recorded on the Town land records, and said lis pendens was

false and fraudulent, as it was based upon enforcement of the Towns false and


3/9

- 3 -


fraudulent tax liens, and it was derogatory to the plaintiffs title to the property. The

Town, acting through the office of Tax Collector, knew that said lis pendens was false

and fraudulent or caused it to be recorded with a reckless disregard as to whether it was

false, and the Town thereby acted with malice towards the plaintiff in recording said lis

pendens against the plaintiffs property.

10. In June 2010, Guillet resigned her position as Tax Collector for the Town

under suspicion that she had engaged in illegal activities in connection with the tax

fraud scheme.

11. In November 2011, Guillet was arrested on charges of larceny and forgery

in connection with the tax fraud scheme, and sometime prior thereto, Guillets successor

as Tax Collector became informed as to the nature of the tax fraud scheme, including

the Towns issuing false and fraudulent real estate tax bills in reliance upon said tax

fraud scheme.

12. Notwithstanding Guillets successor becoming informed of the tax fraud

scheme, the Town ratified the inflated, false and fraudulent real estate tax bills issued to

the plaintiff pursuant to said scheme, as well as the tax liens and lis pendens recorded

against the plaintiffs property pursuant to said scheme, by its continuing efforts to

collect upon said inflated, false and fraudulent real estate tax bills, which efforts

culminated in the Town conducting a tax sale auction of the property on June 28, 2012

and the Town accepting a bid of $600,000 for the property by defendant Angelo Melisi

(Melisi).

13. In conducting said tax sale auction of the property, the Town failed to

inform Melisi that the plaintiff disputed the Towns real estate tax bill on the property, as

being the product of the Guillet tax fraud scheme, and the Town further failed to inform

Melisi that the plaintiff disputed the Towns right to transfer title to the property by means

of a tax sale auction, as these were based upon the tax fraud scheme. When Melisi


4/9

- 4 -


became informed of these facts, he demanded that the Town return the $100,000

deposit he provided to the Town as the successful bidder at the tax sale auction and he

informed the Town that he would not pay the $500,000 balance to complete the sales

transaction.

14. When the Town failed and refused to return Melisis $100,000 deposit and

rescind his tax auction purchase of the property as Melisi demanded, Melisi filed a civil

action against the Town in March 2013, wherein Melisi alleged that the tax auction

conducted by the Town on the property was the product of fraud committed by the Town

and further that the Towns refusal to return Melisis $100,000 deposit constituted

conversion by the Town of said funds.

15. Notwithstanding the plaintiffs claim that the tax sale of its property was

based upon inflated, false and fraudulent real estate tax bills that were the product of

the Guillet tax fraud scheme and Melisis claim that the Town had defrauded him in

connection with said tax sale, on April 9, 2013, the Town, acting through its agents,

caused a deed to be recorded on the Town land records purporting to transfer title to

the property from the plaintiff to Melisi, which was derogatory to the plaintiffs title to the

property.

16. The Town recorded said deed with the knowledge that the purported

transfer of title set forth therein was false and fraudulent and disputed as such by both

the plaintiff and Melisi, and the Town thereby acted with malice towards the plaintiff in

recording said deed against the plaintiffs property.

17. The Towns malicious recording of false tax liens, a false lis pendens, and

a false deed of transfer of title as to the plaintiffs property caused the plaintiff to suffer

special damages, including a diminution in the value of the property, and these acts by

the Town constitute slander of the plaintiffs title to the property.


5/9

- 5 -


18. As a consequence of the Town recording false tax liens upon the property,

the plaintiff was denied certain licenses sought by the plaintiff in connection with the

property being utilized for satellite telecommunication operations, pursuant to the

plaintiffs business plan for the property.

19. As a consequence of the Town recording false tax liens, a false lis

pendens, and a false deed upon the property, the plaintiffs ability to lease the property

for satellite telecommunication operations was impaired and/or destroyed, causing the

plaintiff to suffer severe economic damages and losses.

20. As a further consequence of the Town recording false tax liens, a false lis

pendens, and a false deed upon the property, the plaintiff has been required to incur

legal fees and costs to oppose and resist said recordings, all to the plaintiffs financial

loss and damage.

21. The Town is vicariously responsible for Guillets misconduct alleged herein

and the resulting losses suffered by the plaintiff under the principle of respondeat

superior and/or its ratification of Guillets misconduct and the tax fraud scheme in

relation to the plaintiffs property.

COUNT TWO (Civil Theft)

1-12. Paragraphs One through Twelve of Count One are hereby made

paragraphs One through Twelve of Count Two.

13. Upon information and belief, the plaintiffs receipt of inflated, false and

fraudulent real estate tax bills for the property was due in part to Guillet having

misappropriated one or more real estate tax payments submitted by the plaintiff on the

property without authorization and with the intent of depriving the plaintiff of the use and

benefit of said funds and converting said funds for her own use.


6/9

- 6 -


14. The Town is vicariously liable for the losses suffered by the plaintiff as a

result of Guillets conversion and theft of one or more of its tax payments, under the

principle of respondeat superior.

COUNT THREE (Quiet Title Action Town of Oxford & Melisi)

1-12. Paragraphs One through Twelve of Count One are hereby made

paragraphs One through Twelve of Count Two.

13. Notwithstanding the plaintiffs claim that the tax sale of its property was

based upon inflated, false and fraudulent real estate tax bills that were the product of

the Guillet tax fraud scheme and Melisis claim that the Town had defrauded him in

connection with said tax sale, on April 9, 2013, the Town, acting through its agents,

caused a deed to be recorded on the Town land records purporting to transfer title to

the property from the plaintiff to Melisi, which was derogatory to the plaintiffs title to the

property.

14. The plaintiff is the absolute owner of a certain piece or parcel of land,

together will all buildings and improvements located thereon, and all appurtenances

thereto, located in the State of Connecticut, County of New Haven and Town of Oxford,

being more particularly bounded and described as follows:

Commencing at a point lying in the Easterly line of Hawley Roadmarked by an iron pipe, which point also marks the Northwesterlycorner of the herein described premises and the Northeasterly corner

of land now or formerly of Elizabeth Merwin, thence the line runs alonga magnetic bearing North 34 16 52 East along said Easterly line ofHawley Road for distance of 137.11 feet to a point, thence the lineturns and runs North 35 10 09 East along said Easterly line ofHawley Road for a distance of 70.10 feet to a point; thence the lineturns and continues to run along said Easterly line of Hawley RoadNorth 54 45 07 East for a distance of 57.49 feet to a point; thencethe line turns and continues to run along said Easterly line of Hawley


7/9

- 7 -


Road North 75 10 37 East for a distance of 59.74 feet to a point;thence the line turns and continues to run along said Easterly line ofHawley Road North 80 17 46 East for a distance of 85.37 feet to apoint; thence the line turns and continues to run along said Easterly

line of Hawley Road North 83 27 13 East for a distance of 101.26feet to a point; thence the line turns and continues to run along saidEasterly line of Hawley Road North 80 53 47 East for a distance of142.55 feet to a point; thence the line turns and continues to run alongsaid Easterly line of Hawley Road North 77 18 16 East for a distanceof 167.00 feet to a point; thence the line turns and continues to runalong said Easterly line of Hawley Road North 84 08 24 East for adistance of 47.77 feet to a point, which point marks the Northeasterlycorner of the herein described premises and the Northwesterly cornerof other land now or formerly of McMann; thence the line turns andruns South 7 42 10 East along the westerly line of land formerly ofMurray Rosenbaum, et al. for a distance of 679.22 feet to a point,which point marks the Southeasterly corner of the herein describedpremises; thence the line turns and runs along the Northerly line ofland now of formerly of Murray Rosenbaum, et al. South 73 54 36West for a distance of 683.94 feet to a point in the Easterly line of saidland now or formerly of Elizabeth Merwin, which point also marks theSouthwesterly corner of the herein described premises; thence the lineturns and runs along the center of a stone wall marking said Easterlyboundary of land now or formerly of Elizabeth Merwin North 16 50 19West for a distance of 75.96 feet to a point; thence the line turns andcontinues to run along said Easterly line of land now or formerly ofElizabeth Merwin North 21 12 10 West for a distance of 64.82 feet to

a point; thence the line turns and runs along said Easterly line of landnow or formerly of Elizabeth Merwin North 14 37 59 West for adistance of 31.67 feet to a point, thence the line turns and runs North19 49 50 West continuing is said Easterly line of land now orformerly of Elizabeth Merwin for a distance of 128.97 fee to a point;thence the line turns and continues to run along Easterly line of landnow or formerly of Elizabeth Merwin North 19 28 23 West for adistance of 284.71 feet to the point and place of beginning.

15. The plaintiff acquired its title by Quit-Claim Deed from Alphastar Television

Network Inc., which Deed is dated December 11, 1997, and recorded in the land

records of the Town of Oxford, Volume/Book 198 page 660.

16. The plaintiff never thereafter transferred title to said property.

17. The defendants claim estates or interests in the property or parts thereof

which are adverse to the title of the plaintiff thereto and derive from the aforementioned


8/9

- 8 -


false and fraudulent real estate tax bills that were the product of the Guillet tax fraud

scheme and, as such, are claims of the defendants to title or interest in the property are

null and void.


9/9

Documents

JJT&M v. Oxford