Assignment of Municipal Tax Liens under §12-195h: Standing, Summary Judgment, and Foreclosure Practice

Introduction

Cazenovia Creek Funding I, LLC (later Benchmark Municipal Tax Services, Ltd.) v. White Eagle Society of Brotherly Help, Inc., Group 315, Polish National Alliance, 346 Conn. 1 (2025), is a Supreme Court of Connecticut decision clarifying how municipal tax liens are validly assigned under General Statutes § 12-195h, who bears the burden of proof, and the proper use of summary judgment and judgment motions in foreclosure cases. The case arose from two Bridgeport property tax liens (2012 and 2013 grand lists) that were assigned by city council resolution to a private assignee. The defendant property owner contested the assignments’ validity, the plaintiff’s standing, and later the foreclosure itself.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court affirmed the Appellate Court and trial court. It held:

The plaintiff bore the burden of proving that the Bridgeport City Council validly assigned the liens under § 12-195h and thus had standing to foreclose.
Certified agendas, minutes of the April 21, 2014 and April 20, 2015 city council meetings, and the subsequent mayoral assignments were sufficient to show that the liens on the 2012 and 2013 grand lists were properly assigned.
Once the plaintiff met its prima facie burden, the defendant needed to come forward with evidence of a genuine dispute of material fact. Mere assertions that “fiscal year 2014” in the agendas did not encompass the 2012 and 2013 liens were insufficient.
The court emphasized that foreclosure‐by‐sale or strict foreclosure judgments require that all liability issues—including special defenses—be resolved first (by default, summary judgment, or trial). The trial court’s grant of summary judgment as to liability alone left certain defenses (payment, accord and satisfaction, 2002 payment agreement) unresolved and arguably should have been followed by a trial on those issues rather than by a motion for strict foreclosure.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

General Statutes § 12-195h: Authorizes a municipality, by resolution of its legislative body, to assign unpaid‐tax liens to a private assignee with all the rights of the town counsel and tax collector, including foreclosure.
Practice Book § 10-70: Sets forth the plaintiff’s burden in a tax lien foreclosure—proof of ownership, assessment, certificate of lien, nonpayment and encumbrances.
Practice Book § 17-33(b): Governs judgments by default in foreclosure actions, emphasizing that liability questions or special defenses must be settled before final foreclosure judgment.
Breen v. Phelps, 186 Conn. 86 (1982): Recognizes the “law of the case” doctrine when a trial court resolves an issue.
Hammer v. Lumbermen’s Mutual Casualty Co., 214 Conn. 573 (1990): Affirms that non‐movants must produce specific evidence of disputed facts in opposing summary judgment—a bald assertion of dispute is not enough.

Legal Reasoning

1. Plaintiff’s Burden of Proof & Standing The court reaffirmed that the lien assignee must prove it has standing under § 12-195h. Proper legislative‐body action (city council resolutions) and mayoral signatures on formal assignments, recorded in the land records, satisfied that requirement.

2. Summary Judgment Standards Once the plaintiff introduced certified lien certificates, agendas, minutes, and assignments, it established a prima facie case under Practice Book § 10-70. The defendant’s attempt to rely on minute‐book language (“Fiscal Year 2014”) to create a factual dispute failed because it did not directly contradict the resolutions or the text of the assignments.

3. Proper Disposition of Special Defenses & Motions for Judgment The court clarified that motions for strict foreclosure or sale judgment should follow only after all liability issues—including all special defenses—are resolved. Here, because the trial court granted summary judgment only as to the lien assignments, unresolved defenses (payment, accord and satisfaction, previous 2002 agreement) should have proceeded to trial rather than being subsumed in a judgment motion.

Impact on Future Cases and on Municipal Tax Foreclosure Law

Assignees must assemble certified legislative‐body minutes and agendas, and recorded mayoral assignments, to prove standing in foreclosure actions under § 12-195h.
Defendants can’t defeat an assignment purely on ambiguous agenda language; they must produce specific evidence of procedural or statutory noncompliance.
Court clerks and practitioners must beware: filing a motion for judgment of foreclosure is premature if any liability defenses remain unresolved, and courts should insist on a trial or summary disposition of those issues first.
After July 1, 2022, § 12-195h(c)(5) prohibits assignees from further reassigning without municipal consent—but this restraint does not apply to assignments executed before that date.

Complex Concepts Simplified

“Grand List” vs. “Fiscal Year”: A “grand list” is the assessment roll date (October 1 yearly) used to levy property taxes. Taxes on the 2012 grand list fell due in mid‐2013 and early 2014—thus liens recorded and assigned in 2014 properly fell in the “Fiscal Year 2014” budget cycle.
“Standing” in Tax Foreclosures: Standing means the plaintiff must show a valid lien interest. Under § 12-195h, a municipality’s legislative body must authorize assignment before a private party can sue to foreclose.
Summary Judgment vs. Judgment in Foreclosure: Summary judgment disposes of factual/legal disputes when no genuine issue exists. A judgment in foreclosure (by sale or strict foreclosure) may issue only after all liability questions—including special defenses—are finally resolved in favor of the plaintiff.
Special Defenses: These are affirmative pledges by the defendant—e.g., “the tax was paid,” or “accord and satisfaction”—that, if proven, negate liability. They must be expressly denied in a reply and tried or summary‐disposed before final foreclosure.

Conclusion

The decision in Cazenovia Creek Funding I, LLC v. White Eagle Society of Brotherly Help, Inc. clarifies three pillars of municipal tax‐lien foreclosures in Connecticut:

Under § 12-195h, an assignee must prove in court that a municipality’s legislative body validly authorized the assignment of specific grand‐list liens.
The plaintiff’s burden to demonstrate standing and nonpayment is prima facie satisfied by certified agendas, minutes, lien certificates, and recorded assignments; a defendant must produce specific contrary evidence to create a factual dispute.
Foreclosure judgments—strict or by sale—must await the resolution of all liability issues, including special defenses; trial or summary judgment is required before a final foreclosure order may issue.

This precedent will guide practitioners and courts in structuring pleadings, collecting proper municipal records, and sequencing foreclosures to ensure due process and statutory compliance.