On Monday, November 3, 2008, the Connecticut Superior Court in Middletown heard arguments in the East Haddam IWWC appeal regarding the Morgan Estates application. Applicant (Hanks, et al) and East Haddam attorneys (all of whom are thus defendants in the appeal) argued that the appeal should be dismissed because the plaintiffs filed it in an untimely manner. Their motion argues that the IWWC wetland decision was first published in the Hartford Courant on July 18, 2008; that the plaintiffs appeal was received by the court more than fifteen days after the publishing of the decision, and outside of the window of time allowed by state statute.
The plaintiffs argued, through Attorney G, that the decision was also published in the local weekly paper the Regional Express (Standard) on July 24 and thus the filing was timely. Two of the plaintiffs attended the court hearing and testified that the weekly paper is a paper of general circulation in East Haddam. Attorney G also presented the fact that East Haddam town ordinance provides for the publishing of the notices in the weekly paper.
Interestingly, in presenting their argument, the defendants were obligated to explain away the existing case law that contradicted their position. Two separate, distinct cases decided by the Connecticut Supreme Court establish the jurisdiction of the later of two published legal notices. The attorney for the applicant went so far as to say 'we think they [the supreme court judges] were wrong.' The judge in the hearing on Monday graciously did not point out that the defendants lawyers motion to dismiss in the face of the established case law was a waste of time and money for all parties as well as the court.
Upon hearing testimony from one of the plaintiffs regarding the existence of the legal notice in the Regional Express, a free version of the paper mailed to virtually all town residents, town attorney Knapp offered his own unsolicited opinion that, as a resident of the town, he had never heard of the paper. Plaintiffs questioned the appropriateness of these remarks after the hearing and it should be noted that the judge did not admonish Knapp for the statements.
The court has up to four months to render a decision on the motion to dismiss.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Update to the appeal. In late December, the judge that heard the motion to dismiss ruled in favor of the Plaintiffs - those that have filed the appeal of the wetland decision. In his decision, the judge ruled that the arguments presented by both the town and the developer did not hold sway with him. It is interesting to note that during this hearing, the town and the developer were clearly on the same side. That does not say much of the rights of taxpaying residents! Unfortunately for everyone involved, the motion to dismiss was simply a costly waste of time. Poor judgment, perhaps, by both the town and the developer's attorneys given that their already was clear legal precedence established for the simple issue of whether the public notice printed by in a second or more newspaper has any binding effect. Good advice for the town might be that they stop confusing the issue by printing notices in more than one paper, decide which paper is the official vehicle for notifying the town folks, and then make this clear to those folks. That would be in the spirit of service to the town taxpayers.
Post a Comment