An Act Concerning The Recovery Of Attorney's Fees In Actions For Wrongful Property Tax Assessment.
Summary
HB 6997 amends Connecticut General Statutes section 12-119, which governs court challenges to property tax assessments that are alleged to be unlawful or manifestly excessive. Under current law, a property owner—or a qualifying recorded lessee who is responsible for paying real property taxes—may apply to Superior Court for relief when a tax is imposed on non-taxable property or when an assessment is so excessive that it could not have been reached without disregarding the statutory valuation rules.
The bill adds a new remedy in those actions: if the court reduces the assessment, it may award reasonable attorney’s fees to the taxpayer, in addition to existing relief and potential reimbursement of any overpaid taxes. The bill also preserves the court’s discretion over costs and does not change the basic one-year filing deadline or the procedure for bringing the case. The effective date is October 1, 2025.
Impact
The bill would directly affect property tax appeal litigation by shifting some of the financial burden of successful assessment challenges from taxpayers to municipalities. It would amend section 12-119 to authorize attorney’s fee recovery when a court finds that a property tax assessment was reduced, potentially encouraging more taxpayers and eligible lessees to contest erroneous or excessive assessments. Municipalities could face increased exposure in wrongful assessment cases, while taxpayers who prevail would have a stronger incentive and a clearer path to recover litigation expenses.
Sentiment
The available voting history suggests strong committee support: the Planning and Development Committee reported the bill favorably on a 20-0 vote. No committee transcript excerpts were provided, so there is no recorded debate to indicate opposition or reservations in the materials supplied. Overall, the bill appears to have been received positively, at least at the committee stage.
Contention
The main policy issue is whether municipalities should be required to bear attorney’s fees when a taxpayer successfully proves an assessment was wrongful or excessive. Supporters would likely view the fee-shifting provision as a fairness measure that helps taxpayers obtain meaningful relief when overassessed, especially where legal costs might otherwise exceed the tax savings. Potential opponents may argue that the change could increase municipal litigation costs, encourage more assessment appeals, and create additional fiscal pressure on local governments. The bill does not alter the underlying standard for proving an excessive assessment, so the contention is focused on the remedy rather than the merits of tax appeals themselves.