Melisi v. Oxford

7/29/2019 Melisi v. Oxford

1/9

Law Office of Mulvey, Oliver, Gould & Crotta

83 Trumbull Street New Haven, CT 06511

Tel. (203) 624-5111 Fax (203) 789-8371 Juris No.: 020350

RETURN DATE: SUPERIOR COURTANGELO MELISI J.D. OF ANSONIAJMILFORDV. AT MILFORDSTATE MARSHAL ARTHUR DAVIES andTOWN OF OXFORD MARCH 12,2013

COMPLAINTFACTS AS TO ALL COUNTS:

1. At all times herein, the Defendant, State Marshal Arthur Davies, was the agent,servant and/or employee of The Town of Oxford Tax Collector and was performing a propertytax auction for property owned by JJT & M, Inc. at 66 Hawley Road, Oxford, Connecticut.

2. On or about June 27, 2012, the Plaintiff, Angelo Melisi, met with Marshal ArthDavies who represented that the owner of the property owed taxes, interest and other fees in thamount of approximately $1,245,906.

3. The Defendant, State Marshal Arthur Davies, represented that the successfulbidder would own the property free and clear of any of the prior owner's interests which woulbe exstinguished as a result of the tax sale.

4. Prior to the auction, the Defendant, Town of Oxford, had started a foreclosureaction seeking to collect the municipal taxes for the property at 66 Hawley Road, Oxford,Connecticut and withdrew that claim despite a vigorous defense by the current owner.

5. Prior to the auction, the Defendant, State Marshal Arthur Davies, failed todisclose that the tax collector had been arrested and/or convicted of stealing tax payer'spayments.

6. The Defendant, State Marshal Arthur Davies, did not disclose to the Plaintiff ththe property owner had filed a declaratory judgment seeking an injunctive relief against theDefendant, Arthur Davies, as well as the Defendant, Town of Oxford and the Tax Collector

-1


2/9

Law Office of Mulvey, Oliver, Gould & Crotfa 83 Trumbull Street

New Haven, CT 06511 Tel. (203) 624-5111 Fax (203) 789-8371 Juris No.: 020350

stating they had paid all the municipal taxes owed and also alleging the tax collector defraudethem by keeping the taxes that they had paid on the subject property.

7. On or about June 28,2012, Angelo Melisi was the only bidder at the tax auctioand he bid $600,000 for the property and provided the Defendant, Davies, a bank check in theamount of $1 00,000 made payable to State Marshal Arthur Davies, Trustee.

8. On or about July 2, 2012, the Plaintiff received a letter from the owner's attornstating they did not owe the taxes, they hired an independent CPA to prove that they overpaidthe taxes and they would be vigorously litigating any attempts to possess the property orinterfere with their property rights. See Exhibit A attached hereto.

9. On or about July 2, 2012, the Plaintiff requested the return of his deposit.10. After receiving the correspondence set forth in Exhibit A, the Plaintiff requeste

a meeting with the Defendant, Arthur Davies, and the Defendant, Town of Oxford, through itsFirst Selectman, George Temple.

11. During the meeting, the First Selectman, George Temple, represented that thetown would return the Plaintiffs $100,000 deposit if the Town's attorney could not get thelitigation dismissed within the current owner's six month right of redemption.

12. The Plaintiff agreed with the Defendants to wait the six months in order todetermine whether the Defendants could provide clear title and a resolution of the lawsuitpending by the current owner.FIRST COUNT: (Fraudulent Non-Disclosure)

1-12. Paragraphs 1 through 12 of the Facts are hereby incorporated and madeParagraphs 1 through 12 of the First Count.

13, After the six month period, the Defendants have not resolved their dispute withthe current owner or the pending lawsuit and have failed to return the Plaintiffs deposit.

14. The Defendant's, State Marshal Arthur Davies, intentional withholding ofinformation to the Plaintiff about the foreclosure proceeding and injunction filed prior to the

-2


3/9

Law Office of &

Crotta 83 Trumbull Street New Haven, CT 06SI1 Tel. (203) 624-S111 Fax (203) 789-8371 Juris No.: 0203S0

auction was a fraudulent non-disclosure of known facts with the intent or expectation to causethe Plaintiff to continue to bid on the property.

15. The fraudulent non-disclosures caused the Plaintiff to bid when in fact, had itbeen disclosed that there was a dispute about whether taxes were owed, the Plaintiff would nothave bid since he did not want to get embroiled in a lawsuit with the current owner.

16. As a result of the fraudulent non-disclosure, the Plaintiff has been damaged.SECOND COUNT: (Fraudulent Misrepresentation)

1-12. Paragraphs 1 through 12 of the Facts are hereby incorporated and madeparagraphs 1 through 12 of the Second Count.

13. The representations by the Defendants that the Plaintiff would own the propertyfree and clear of any claims of the current owner was a false representation made as a statemenof fact, was a statement that was untrue and known to be so by the Defendants since there was withdrawal of the foreclosure action and knowledge of an injunction filed the day before the taxauction.

14. The Defendants' statements were made with the intent of inducing the Plaintiffto rely thereupon and therefore bid on the property, and the Plaintiff relied on the statement tohis detriment.

15. The Defendants' fraudulent misrepresentation was made with reckless disregardof the truth for the purpose of inducing action by the Plaintiff to bid on the property thereuponcausing the Plaintiff damages.THIRD COUNT: (Breach of Contract)

1-12. Paragraphs 1 through 12 of the Facts are hereby incorporated and madeparagraphs 1 through 12 of the Third Count.

13. The Defendants' failure to return the Plaintiff's deposit is a breach of theiragreement to do so since they were unable to resolve the litigation with the current ownerwithin six months and provide the Plaintiff with a deed that he owned the property.FOURTH COUNT: (Unjust Enrichment)

-3


4/9

Law Office of , Oliver, G ould & Crotta

83 Trumbull Street New Haven, CT 06511 Tel. (203) 624-5111 Fax (203) 789-8371 Juris No.: 020350

1 12. Paragraphs 1 through 12 of the Facts are hereby incorporated and madeparagraphs 1 through 12 of the Fourth Count

13. Subsequent to the meeting with the Defendants concerning the claim that thetaxes were paid by the current owner, the Defendants wrongfully took the Plaintiffs deposit of$100,000 and cashed that check giving it to the Town Tax Collector.

14. Despite demands for the return of the deposit, the Defendants have failed torefund the Plaintiff his $100,000 deposit wherein the Defendants have been unjustly enriched.FIFTH COUNT: (Conversion)

1-12. Paragraphs 1 through 10 of the Facts are hereby incorporated and madeparagraphs 1 through 12 of the Fifth Count

13. The Defendants failed to hold the Plaintiffs deposit in trust, but rather cashedthe check and turned the proceeds over to the Defendant, Town of Oxford, which was awrongful detention of the Plaintiffs personal property.

14. The Defendants were not able to settle the litigation with the current owner andprovide the Defendant with the deed for the property after the six month redemption period andfailed to return the deposit

15. The Defendants' actions in the wrongful detention of the deposit has caused thePlaintiff to be damaged.SIXTH COUNT: (CUTPA)

1-12. Paragraphs 1 through 12 of the Facts are hereby incorporated and madeparagraphs 1 through 12 of the Sixth Count.

13. The Defendants engaged in unfair competition and unfair and deceptive tradepractices in violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, Connecticut GeneralStatute 42-110a et seq., in the Defendants' actions set forth above are:

a. A violation of public policy, the common law or other concepts ofunfairness;

b. Immoral, unethical or unscrupulous;

-4


5/9

Law Office of ulvey, Oliver, Gould & Crotta

83 Trumbull Street New Haven, CT 06511 Tel. (203) 624-5111 Fax (203) 789-8371 Juris No.: 020350

c. Causes a substantial injury to consumers, competitors or other businesspersons.

14. As a result of the foregoing unfair and improper conduct of the Defendants, thePlaintiff has suffered ascertainable loss.

15. The Defendants' conduct amounted to a reckless indifference to the rights ofothers or an intentional and wanton violation of those rights.


6/9

Law Office of Mulvey, Oliver, Gould & Crotta 83 Trumbull Street

New Haven, CT 0651 I Tel. (203) 624-5 II I Fax (203) 789-8371 Juris No.: 020350

WHEREFORE, THE PLAINTIFF CLAIMS:1. Money damages within the jurisdiction of this Court;2. Interest;3. Attorney's Fees;4. Exemplary Damages;5. Treble Damages. Dated at New Haven, Connecticut, this 12th day of March, 2013.

THE PLAINTIFF,

B Y ~ ~~ . H i ,1Mulvey Oliver Gould & Crotta83 Trumbull StreetNew Haven Connecticut, 06511Phone: (203)624-5111Fax: (203)[email protected]

-6
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]


7/9

Law Office of y, Oliver, Gould & Crotta

83 Trumbull Street Haven, CT 06511 Tel. (203) 624-5111 Fax (203) 789-8371 Juris No.: 020350

RETURN DATE: SUPERIOR COURTANGELO MELISI J.D. OF ANSONIAIMILFORDV. AT MILFORDSTATE MARSHAL ARTHUR DAVIES andTOWN OF OXFORD MARCH 12,2013

AD DAMNUMThe Plaintiff in the above-entitled action claims money damages in excess of

$15,000.00.

THE PLAINTIFF,

B Y : ~~ . H i n ,Mulvey Oliver Gould & Crotta83 Trumbull StreetNew Haven Connecticut, 06511Phone: (203)624-5111Fax: (203)[email protected]

-7
http:///reader/full/15,000.00mailto:[email protected]:///reader/full/15,000.00mailto:[email protected]


8/9

.

EXHIBIT A


9/9

2012-07-02 07;33 ABOUSHI 7187013455 1203777 2096 P2i2. EXHIBIT A

THE ABO lJSll1 I-.lAW : F I I ~ ~ I501 5th Avenue, Suite 305. New York, NY 10017264 Lakeview Avenue, Clifton, NJ 07011Tel: 2 ] 2 ~ 3 0 0 - 2 1 1 3 Fax: 646-367-4925 \\lww.Aboushi.com

July 2, 2012Mr. Slephen R. BellisThe Pellegrino Law Firm. P.C.475 Whitney AvenueNew Haven. CT 06511Via: Facsimile to (203) 777-2096

Rc: JJT&MMr. Bellis:

I represent JJT&M and lun writing in reference to your representation of thesuccessful bidder at the auction of 11T&M's real estah:. Please know that our position isthat my client does not owe the taxes alleged to be owed. We have cancelled cnecks aswell as a report from an independent CPA to prove that my client actually over-paid itstaxes. It is clear that the fonner tax collector converted tax r e v e n u e ~ including myclient's payments, and that this n0I1-judicial tax auction is the Town's way of abdicatingresponsibiliLy for thcir failure to supervise ber. Moreover, the Town recently withdrew atax foreclosure action against my client because it apparently realized that it could neversucceed in a lax toreclosure through the judicial process. Because the Town cannotjustify the tax foreclosure action Or prove that taxes are owed by my client. its onlyoption was to conduct a non-judicial tax auction,

This neliuious and illegal attempt 10 deprive my client of its property right.s wil[ bevigorously litigated. To that end, we have filed an action against the Town to restrain theTown from further interfering with my client's property rights. We also intend to pursuemultiple t0l1 claims against the Town. That being said, please be advised that i f yourclient attempts to possess my client's real estate, or in any way interfere wilh my cJienrsproperty rights, we will have no choice but to include him in the action.

I welcome the opportunity to discuss this maner with you at your convenience.
http:///reader/full/lww.Aboushi.comhttp:///reader/full/lww.Aboushi.com

Melisi v. Oxford

Documents

Transcript of Melisi v. Oxford