RET. DATE JULY 16, 2013 JJT & M, INC. v. TOWN OF OXFORD : : : COMPLAINT COUNT ONE 1.

(Slander of Title – Town of Oxford) SUPERIOR COURT J. D. at MILFORD JUNE 20, 2013

The plaintiff, JJT & M, Inc., is a Connecticut corporation that, for all times

relevant hereto, was and is the rightful owner of a parcel of commercial real estate located at 66 Hawley Road, Oxford, CT (the “property”). 2. Said property includes a commercial building that was designed and

constructed for the purpose of supporting satellite telecommunication operations, and the plaintiff purchased the property with the intention of using it for such business purposes. 3. For all relevant times set forth herein, Karen Guillet was the Tax Collector

for the defendant Town of Oxford (the “Town”), and in said position she was an officer, employee and/or agent of the Town with respect to the assessment and collection of real estate property taxes on real property situated in the Town, including the plaintiff’s property, and the Town authorized Guillet to act on its behalf in collecting real estate taxes on Town property 4. For all relevant times set forth herein, the Town benefitted financially from

Town property owners complying with the directives and instructions issued by Guillet as to the payment of real estate taxes on their properties and the Town actively

Willcutts Law Group, LLC • Attorneys at Law • 285 Farmington Avenue • Hartford, CT 06105 • (860) 524-6800 • Juris # 412755

encouraged its property owners to comply with said directives and instructions issued by Guillet. 5. For all relevant times set forth herein, Guillet engaged in a scheme to

defraud various Town property owners by manipulating and altering real estate tax assessments, by failing to credit property owners for payments submitted in payment of their real estate tax bills, and/or by stealing taxpayer funds (hereinafter “the tax fraud scheme”). 6. As a direct consequence of Guillet’s tax fraud scheme, numerous Town

residents were issued real estate tax bills by the Town that were inflated, false and fraudulent. 7. The plaintiff was a victim of Guillet’s tax fraud scheme, and as a direct

consequence of said tax fraud scheme, the Town issued real estate tax bills to the plaintiff that were inflated, false and fraudulent. 8. When the plaintiff began protesting and resisting its real estate tax bills

that it perceived to be inflated and erroneous, the Town caused tax liens to be recorded against the plaintiff’s property on the Town land records, and said tax lien recordings were false and fraudulent, as they were based upon inflated, false and fraudulent tax bills, and they were derogatory to the plaintiff’s title to the property. The Town, acting through the office of Tax Collector, knew that said tax liens were false and fraudulent or caused them to be recorded with a reckless disregard as to whether they were false, and the Town thereby acted with malice towards the plaintiff in recording false tax liens against the plaintiff’s property. 9. When the plaintiff continued to protest and resist its real estate tax bills

that it perceived to be inflated and erroneous, the Town further caused a lis pendens of a foreclosure action to be recorded on the Town land records, and said lis pendens was false and fraudulent, as it was based upon enforcement of the Town’s false and -2Willcutts Law Group, LLC • Attorneys at Law • 285 Farmington Avenue • Hartford, CT 06105 • (860) 524-6800 • Juris # 412755

fraudulent tax liens, and it was derogatory to the plaintiff’s title to the property. The Town, acting through the office of Tax Collector, knew that said lis pendens was false and fraudulent or caused it to be recorded with a reckless disregard as to whether it was false, and the Town thereby acted with malice towards the plaintiff in recording said lis pendens against the plaintiff’s property. 10. In June 2010, Guillet resigned her position as Tax Collector for the Town

under suspicion that she had engaged in illegal activities in connection with the tax fraud scheme. 11. In November 2011, Guillet was arrested on charges of larceny and forgery

in connection with the tax fraud scheme, and sometime prior thereto, Guillet’s successor as Tax Collector became informed as to the nature of the tax fraud scheme, including the Town’s issuing false and fraudulent real estate tax bills in reliance upon said tax fraud scheme. 12. Notwithstanding Guillet’s successor becoming informed of the tax fraud

scheme, the Town ratified the inflated, false and fraudulent real estate tax bills issued to the plaintiff pursuant to said scheme, as well as the tax liens and lis pendens recorded against the plaintiff’s property pursuant to said scheme, by its continuing efforts to collect upon said inflated, false and fraudulent real estate tax bills, which efforts culminated in the Town conducting a tax sale auction of the property on June 28, 2012 and the Town accepting a bid of $600,000 for the property by defendant Angelo Melisi (“Melisi”). 13. In conducting said tax sale auction of the property, the Town failed to

inform Melisi that the plaintiff disputed the Town’s real estate tax bill on the property, as being the product of the Guillet tax fraud scheme, and the Town further failed to inform Melisi that the plaintiff disputed the Town’s right to transfer title to the property by means of a tax sale auction, as these were based upon the tax fraud scheme. When Melisi -3Willcutts Law Group, LLC • Attorneys at Law • 285 Farmington Avenue • Hartford, CT 06105 • (860) 524-6800 • Juris # 412755

became informed of these facts, he demanded that the Town return the $100,000 deposit he provided to the Town as the successful bidder at the tax sale auction and he informed the Town that he would not pay the $500,000 balance to complete the sales transaction. 14. When the Town failed and refused to return Melisi’s $100,000 deposit and

rescind his tax auction purchase of the property as Melisi demanded, Melisi filed a civil action against the Town in March 2013, wherein Melisi alleged that the tax auction conducted by the Town on the property was the product of fraud committed by the Town and further that the Town’s refusal to return Melisi’s $100,000 deposit constituted conversion by the Town of said funds. 15. Notwithstanding the plaintiff’s claim that the tax sale of its property was

based upon inflated, false and fraudulent real estate tax bills that were the product of the Guillet tax fraud scheme and Melisi’s claim that the Town had defrauded him in connection with said tax sale, on April 9, 2013, the Town, acting through its agents, caused a deed to be recorded on the Town land records purporting to transfer title to the property from the plaintiff to Melisi, which was derogatory to the plaintiff’s title to the property. 16. The Town recorded said deed with the knowledge that the purported

transfer of title set forth therein was false and fraudulent and disputed as such by both the plaintiff and Melisi, and the Town thereby acted with malice towards the plaintiff in recording said deed against the plaintiff’s property. 17. The Town’s malicious recording of false tax liens, a false lis pendens, and

a false deed of transfer of title as to the plaintiff’s property caused the plaintiff to suffer special damages, including a diminution in the value of the property, and these acts by the Town constitute slander of the plaintiff’s title to the property.

-4Willcutts Law Group, LLC • Attorneys at Law • 285 Farmington Avenue • Hartford, CT 06105 • (860) 524-6800 • Juris # 412755

18.

As a consequence of the Town recording false tax liens upon the property,

the plaintiff was denied certain licenses sought by the plaintiff in connection with the property being utilized for satellite telecommunication operations, pursuant to the plaintiff’s business plan for the property. 19. As a consequence of the Town recording false tax liens, a false lis

pendens, and a false deed upon the property, the plaintiff’s ability to lease the property for satellite telecommunication operations was impaired and/or destroyed, causing the plaintiff to suffer severe economic damages and losses. 20. As a further consequence of the Town recording false tax liens, a false lis

pendens, and a false deed upon the property, the plaintiff has been required to incur legal fees and costs to oppose and resist said recordings, all to the plaintiff’s financial loss and damage. 21. The Town is vicariously responsible for Guillet’s misconduct alleged herein

and the resulting losses suffered by the plaintiff under the principle of respondeat superior and/or its ratification of Guillet’s misconduct and the tax fraud scheme in relation to the plaintiff’s property. COUNT TWO (Civil Theft)

1-12. Paragraphs One through Twelve of Count One are hereby made paragraphs One through Twelve of Count Two. 13. Upon information and belief, the plaintiff’s receipt of inflated, false and

fraudulent real estate tax bills for the property was due in part to Guillet having misappropriated one or more real estate tax payments submitted by the plaintiff on the property without authorization and with the intent of depriving the plaintiff of the use and benefit of said funds and converting said funds for her own use.

-5Willcutts Law Group, LLC • Attorneys at Law • 285 Farmington Avenue • Hartford, CT 06105 • (860) 524-6800 • Juris # 412755

14.

The Town is vicariously liable for the losses suffered by the plaintiff as a

result of Guillet’s conversion and theft of one or more of its tax payments, under the principle of respondeat superior. COUNT THREE (Quiet Title Action – Town of Oxford & Melisi)

1-12. Paragraphs One through Twelve of Count One are hereby made paragraphs One through Twelve of Count Two. 13. Notwithstanding the plaintiff’s claim that the tax sale of its property was

based upon inflated, false and fraudulent real estate tax bills that were the product of the Guillet tax fraud scheme and Melisi’s claim that the Town had defrauded him in connection with said tax sale, on April 9, 2013, the Town, acting through its agents, caused a deed to be recorded on the Town land records purporting to transfer title to the property from the plaintiff to Melisi, which was derogatory to the plaintiff’s title to the property. 14. The plaintiff is the absolute owner of a certain piece or parcel of land,

together will all buildings and improvements located thereon, and all appurtenances thereto, located in the State of Connecticut, County of New Haven and Town of Oxford, being more particularly bounded and described as follows: Commencing at a point lying in the Easterly line of Hawley Road marked by an iron pipe, which point also marks the Northwesterly corner of the herein described premises and the Northeasterly corner of land now or formerly of Elizabeth Merwin, thence the line runs along a magnetic bearing North 34° 16’ 52” East along said Easterly line of Hawley Road for distance of 137.11 feet to a point, thence the line turns and runs North 35° 10’ 09” East along said Easterly line of Hawley Road for a distance of 70.10 feet to a point; thence the line turns and continues to run along said Easterly line of Hawley Road North 54° 45’ 07” East for a distance of 57.49 feet to a point; thence the line turns and continues to run along said Easterly line of Hawley -6Willcutts Law Group, LLC • Attorneys at Law • 285 Farmington Avenue • Hartford, CT 06105 • (860) 524-6800 • Juris # 412755

Road North 75° 10’ 37” East for a distance of 59.74 feet to a point; thence the line turns and continues to run along said Easterly line of Hawley Road North 80° 17’ 46” East for a distance of 85.37 feet to a point; thence the line turns and continues to run along said Easterly line of Hawley Road North 83° 27’ 13” East for a distance of 101.26 feet to a point; thence the line turns and continues to run along said Easterly line of Hawley Road North 80° 53’ 47” East for a distance of 142.55 feet to a point; thence the line turns and continues to run along said Easterly line of Hawley Road North 77° 18’ 16” East for a distance of 167.00 feet to a point; thence the line turns and continues to run along said Easterly line of Hawley Road North 84° 08’ 24” East for a distance of 47.77 feet to a point, which point marks the Northeasterly corner of the herein described premises and the Northwesterly corner of other land now or formerly of McMann; thence the line turns and runs South 7° 42’ 10” East along the westerly line of land formerly of Murray Rosenbaum, et al. for a distance of 679.22 feet to a point, which point marks the Southeasterly corner of the herein described premises; thence the line turns and runs along the Northerly line of land now of formerly of Murray Rosenbaum, et al. South 73° 54’ 36” West for a distance of 683.94 feet to a point in the Easterly line of said land now or formerly of Elizabeth Merwin, which point also marks the Southwesterly corner of the herein described premises; thence the line turns and runs along the center of a stone wall marking said Easterly boundary of land now or formerly of Elizabeth Merwin North 16° 50’ 19” West for a distance of 75.96 feet to a point; thence the line turns and continues to run along said Easterly line of land now or formerly of Elizabeth Merwin North 21° 12’ 10” West for a distance of 64.82 feet to a point; thence the line turns and runs along said Easterly line of land now or formerly of Elizabeth Merwin North 14° 37’ 59” West for a distance of 31.67 feet to a point, thence the line turns and runs North 19° 49’ 50” West continuing is said Easterly line of land now or formerly of Elizabeth Merwin for a distance of 128.97 fee to a point; thence the line turns and continues to run along Easterly line of land now or formerly of Elizabeth Merwin North 19° 28’ 23” West for a distance of 284.71 feet to the point and place of beginning. 15. The plaintiff acquired its title by Quit-Claim Deed from Alphastar Television

Network Inc., which Deed is dated December 11, 1997, and recorded in the land records of the Town of Oxford, Volume/Book 198 page 660. 16. 17. The plaintiff never thereafter transferred title to said property. The defendants claim estates or interests in the property or parts thereof

which are adverse to the title of the plaintiff thereto and derive from the aforementioned -7Willcutts Law Group, LLC • Attorneys at Law • 285 Farmington Avenue • Hartford, CT 06105 • (860) 524-6800 • Juris # 412755

false and fraudulent real estate tax bills that were the product of the Guillet tax fraud scheme and, as such, are claims of the defendants to title or interest in the property are null and void.

-8Willcutts Law Group, LLC • Attorneys at Law • 285 Farmington Avenue • Hartford, CT 06105 • (860) 524-6800 • Juris # 412755

WHEREFORE, the plaintiff claims 1. 2. 3. 4. Money damages; As to Count Two only, treble damages pursuant to C.G.S. §52-564. As to Count Three only, a judgment determining the rights of the parties in or to the property and settling the title thereto Any other such equitable or legal relief that the Court deems appropriate.

PLAINTIFF,

By Thomas P. Willcutts Willcutts Law Group, LLC

-9Willcutts Law Group, LLC • Attorneys at Law • 285 Farmington Avenue • Hartford, CT 06105 • (860) 524-6800 • Juris # 412755