When an appellant challenges a trial court’s factual findings, attention to procedural rules is crucial. In Park Seymour Associates, LLC v. City of Hartford / Park Squire Associates, LLC v. City of Hartford, the plaintiffs discovered this the hard way. Despite their reliance on testimony to argue that the trial court’s factual findings were clearly erroneous, the plaintiffs failed to provide any transcripts for appellate review. Instead, they indicated that no transcript was necessary for resolution of their claim. Their failure to provide transcripts prevented the Connecticut Appellate Court from reviewing their claim. This case serves as a reminder of the importance of providing an adequate record on appeal and ensuring compliance with procedural rules.
Background on the Underlying Property Tax Dispute
The plaintiffs, Park Seymour Associates, LLC and Park Squire Associates, LLC, brought municipal tax appeals, allowed pursuant to General Statutes § 12-119, to the trial court. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants, the City of Hartford and its Board of Assessment Appeals, improperly assessed their properties. The plaintiffs alleged existence of a tax abatement agreement, which the defendants failed to take into account.
At trial, the plaintiffs relied on the testimony of Carlos Valinho, the sole member of both of the LLCs at issue. Although the trial court credited Valinho’s testimony that he communicated with city officials regarding the tax abatements, the court further concluded that the plaintiffs failed to present any credible evidence of the content of those discussions, what agreements were reached (if any), and whether the people involved in the conversations with Valinho about the tax abatements had authority to legally bind the city.
Relying on a Hartford ordinance that required “all tax abatement agreements to be approved by the city council,” the trial court found that the plaintiffs failed to present sufficient evidence of binding agreements for the alleged tax abatements between the plaintiffs and the defendants. Without proof of valid and enforceable agreements, the trial court ruled in favor of the defendants.
Appeal to the Connecticut Appellate Court
The plaintiffs appealed to the Connecticut Appellate Court. On appeal, they claimed that the court’s finding that there were no tax abatement agreements between the parties was “clearly erroneous.” The plaintiffs argued that the testimony presented at trial supported the existence of the tax abatement agreements.
Ultimately, the Appellate Court declined to reach the claim because the plaintiffs failed to provide an adequate record for review. The Court emphasized that without a record containing trial transcripts, it could not determine whether any evidence existed to support the trial court’s findings.
The “Clearly Erroneous” Standard
Although the plaintiffs claimed that the trial court’s finding was “clearly erroneous,” they did not include a standard of review in their appellate brief. This, alone, violates appellate procedural rules in Connecticut.
Practice Book § 67-4, which describes the contents and organization of the appellant’s brief, requires that
“(t)he argument on each point shall include a separate, brief statement of the standard of review the appellant believes should be applied.”
Practice Book § 67-4 (e).
The Appellate Court noted this omission but resolved the claim, noting that the plaintiffs identified the standard review as “clearly erroneous” during oral argument.
As the Appellate Court explained, findings of fact are subject to a clearly erroneous standard of review. The Court reiterated that, under this standard,
“[a] finding of fact will not be disturbed unless it is clearly erroneous in view of the evidence and pleadings in the whole record…. A finding of fact is clearly erroneous when there is no evidence in the record to support it … or when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.”
To review a claim that a finding was clearly erroneous, it follows that a reviewing court needs a record to review whether there was any support for the trial court’s finding. Pursuant to Practice Book § 61-10 (a), our courts place the burden of providing an adequate record on the appellant.
Preliminary Appeal Papers Required by Connecticut Practice Book § 63-4
Where a trial court’s findings of fact rely on transcribed proceedings, those transcripts are an essential part of the record necessary to review whether the findings of fact were clearly erroneous.
At the outset of every appeal, our rules of practice require appellants to file preliminary appeal papers. Practice Book § 63-4 describes each required preliminary appeal paper. Although some view these as administrative filings, missteps, inaccuracies, and omissions in these filings can be costly to parties, as was the case in Park Seymour.
Pursuant to Practice Book § 63-4 (a)(3), the plaintiffs filed the required certificate regarding transcripts. The certificate regarding transcripts is significant because it defines the scope of the record by informing the Court and the appellee which, if any, transcripts are necessary for resolving the appeal.
In this case, the plaintiffs indicated on their certificate regarding transcripts that no transcripts were necessary for the resolution of the appeal and did not order transcripts as part of the appellate record.
The Connecticut Appellate Court Declines to Review Claim Based on an Inadequate Record
Despite indicating that transcripts were not necessary to resolve the appeal, the plaintiffs relied on Valinho’s testimony in support of their claim that the trial court’s finding that there were no agreements about the tax abatement was clearly erroneous.
The Connecticut Appellate Court declined to reach the merits of the claim. The Court concluded that “[t]he plaintiffs’ failure to provide this court with transcripts of the trial renders impossible any meaningful evaluation of the entirety of the evidence presented to the court.” It held that it could not address the merits of the claim because the plaintiffs failed to provide the Court with an adequate record for review and affirmed the trial court’s judgment.
This makes sense—how can a reviewing court determine if a finding of fact is clearly erroneous (i.e., unsupported by any evidence in record or if there is evidence to support it, reviewing court is left with definite and firm conviction that mistake was committed) without having the relevant records?
Appellate Practice Tip #1: Include Trial Transcripts When Claiming That a Trial Court’s Findings of Fact Are Clearly Erroneous
Any time a party challenges a trial court’s finding of fact as clearly erroneous, they must include in the appellate record the trial transcripts underlying those findings. Appellate courts evaluate factual findings based on the evidence presented at trial. Without transcripts, the reviewing court cannot assess whether the trial court’s conclusions were supported by the evidence. This can result in an automatic rejection of the claim due to an inadequate record.
To avoid this, trial attorneys should be proactive in preserving the record for appeal by ensuring that key testimony, exhibits, and rulings are transcribed and included. Appellate attorneys, in turn, must carefully evaluate which parts of the record are necessary to support their arguments and file a complete transcript or certificate of transcripts with their preliminary appeal papers, as required by Connecticut Practice Book § 63-4. Failure to do so risks the court declining to review appellate issues.
Appellate Practice Tip #2: Include Relevant Standards of Review in Your Brief
Ensure that your appellate brief complies with the procedural rules. Each argument must include the appropriate applicable standard of review. Failure to include the relevant standard of review may lead the court to decline review of the issue.
Read the full decision in Park Seymour Associates, LLC v. City of Hartford / Park Squire Associates, LLC v. City of Hartford.
Providing a complete and adequate record is critical to ensuring that an appellate court reviews your appellate issues. If you have questions about preserving or presenting an adequate record on appeal, contact me to discuss.
