New Haven Independent

Clyne, who has served as top assistant to two prior selectmen, John Opie and Anthony “Unk” DaRos, threw settlement talks into disarray three weeks ago when she told town attorneys that she would not sign a standard release form that would have ended a case brought by Dawn and William Massey in 2004. The town decided to enter settlement talks on the eve of trial last month. The voluminous court papers filed so far in this case show a disparate system of tax assessment. The lawsuit asserts that some favored taxpayers receive tax breaks while others do not.
The defendants in the case, Barbara Neal, the town assessor and Michael Milici, a contractor-assessor for the town and the current assessor of East Haven, had agreed to sign standard releases.
But not Ms. Clyne. She stood firm. Her reasons have not been fully articulated. But one reason put forth in court papers is that Ms. Clyne is Milici’s girlfriend and she is deeply upset that the Masseys want personal information about their relationship. Lawyers for the town say that because Clyne is a non-party to the lawsuit, she cannot be forced by the town to sign a general release. And she won’t do it voluntarily. The releases are designed to preclude future litigation evolving from a current lawsuit.
The Masseys assert that to their detriment Clyne’s allegiance shifted from the town and her job to Milici. In court papers, Mrs. Massey says that Ms. Clyne “made it almost impossible” for the plaintiffs to “get any records that would meaningfully identify” those houses that Milici assessed for the town in recent years. Clyne would tell FOI hearings that lists of addresses inspected by Milici were either misplaced, lost or detached, court papers say. Clyne also oversees access to records kept in the locked Town Hall attic that the Masseys say they have been unable to see.
Milici has also testified at his deposition that his initials were not supposed to appear on the town’s field cards, thus making his identity difficult to trace. In a deposition Milici admits he asked Clyne to give him copies of all FOI requests from Misty Williams, Mrs. Massey’s mother and her agent along with the “responses that referred to him,” court papers say.
The Masseys learned about the romantic relationship during the course of the two year case and have since sought evidence seeking to know if Clyne’s relationship with Milici, a named defendant, created a conflict that presumably required her removal as town FOI information provider. Ms. Clyne has protested vigorously against turning over personal information. It is against this backdrop that she reiterated to Attorney Shelley Marcus during a cell phone call at the July 10th settlement talks that she would not sign a release.
Subsequently, Daniel DeMerchant, of the Hartford firm of Howd & Ludorf, talked to Clyne and asked her to consult an attorney. She did. In a letter dated July 12, and sent to the Masseys, DeMerchant explained Clyne’s position, adding “Ms. Clyne further represented that she will not voluntarily execute a release in this case, especially since there is no benefit in her doing so.”
The handwritten agreement on the tax issues changes the description of the Massey home from “custom,” a category that dramatically increases taxes based on square footage of the house, to “colonial.” Milici, who was the former chair of the Branford Democratic Party, was the part-time assessor who labeled the house “custom.”
The “custom” designation increases dramatically the tax cost per square foot and does so for the life of the house. In the past, Ms. Neal has refused to change the “custom” category, a category brought into the town’s lexicon by its outside revaluation company, Vision Appraisal, Inc. in 2002, and quickly adopted by Ms. Neal. It applies to more than 200 houses, regardless of when they were built.
The parties also agreed that the Masseys would be refunded tax overpayments plus interest of 10 percent as well as settlement costs of $3,000. Other changes included recognition of a large percentage of the property as wetlands. It was left to DeMerchant and Mrs. Massey to iron out the rest, including the final paperwork. And that is when the deal ran into trouble and ultimately fell apart. DeMerchant’s position is that “settlement agreements and settlement documents are different.”
The Masseys disagree. From their point of view the settlement was still in progress. Their position was that they believed in their case, but it had taken an enormous toll on them. If they were to give it up for a settlement they had to make sure they would not face another lawsuit. So when Clyne refused to sign the waiver, Dawn Massey said, okay, let’s go to trial.
At this point the town asked Superior Court Judge Lynda Munro, who oversees a complex litigation part in Waterbury Superior Court, to enforce the July 3rd settlement. This motion, which the court granted, led to a so-called “Audubon” hearing Monday. The hearing takes it name from a 1993 Connecticut Supreme Court case, “Audubon Parking Associates Ltd Partnership v. Barclay & Stubbs.”
The purpose of the Audubon hearing was for the judge to determine if the terms of the settlement were “clear and unambiguous,” a standard set in that case. To that end the judge took evidence over the next four hours.
That evidence consisted of exhibits and the testimony of the attorneys, including Shelley Marcus and DeMerchant, and the Masseys, husband William Massey, mother Misty Williams, and Mrs. Massey herself. Each took the witness stand. Each faced cross-examination by one or the other of them.
The town’s position is that the case was a done deal when the handwritten, initialed tax agreements were signed July 3rd. A key part of the legal test is what the parties thought at the time they entered into the purported settlement. “You’ve got to get me in your brain when you signed the agreement,” the judge said at one point.
The most fascinating part of the day came when the judge instructed Dawn Massey how to be her own witness. Mrs. Massey, an accounting professor, is acting as her own attorney or pro-se. For a pro se litigant she finds herself in an unusual situation. She is up against two law firms, not one, and when she took the stand she had no one to question her.
Judge Munro explained that Massey should testify “in the narrative,” and to be prepared for David Doyle, of the Marcus law firm, to make objections. Massey gave the court a chronology, including telling the judge that DeMerchant instructed her to notify the judge that the case was settled. This occurred before the case was finalized and Doyle used this document to claim Massey had settled the case. .
Under cross-examination Doyle tried to shake Mrs Massey’s testimony, but he failed. Finally, appearing exasperated, he declared “You kept this alive because of a non-party who refused to sign.” He then sought to find out what Mrs. Massey had against Trista Clyne. He opened the door wide. And Mrs. Massey wasted no time in walking through it, telling Doyle her beliefs. In so doing, she took the judge right into her brain.
“I needed a release from her because of her boyfriend,” she said referring to actions she believes Milici undertook during the course of the two year litigation. Mrs. Massey then listed actions taken against her and her family by the town’s zoning enforcement bureau, by inland wetlands, by the town’s building department, by other administrative agencies and finally by the police. She did not provide details but the implication was she had compiled sufficient information to link Milici to some or all of these events.
The first witness of the day was Ms. Marcus who testified that she took care of the tax end of the agreement and that it all seemed in order when she left for an appointment. Mrs. Massey elicited that the remainder of the agreement had to be worked out with DeMerchant.
Under cross-examination by Massey, Ms. Marcus said that the Massey case was similar to and different than 150-200 other town tax cases. “Are there any other cases challenging the grand lists? Mrs. Massey asked. “Not to my knowledge,” Ms. Marcus replied.
William Massey, who is a firefighter in Wallingford, said he wanted the case to end so “I would get my wife back.” In his mind, he said, the case was not fully settled because all the terms were not included.
“What terms were not included,” Mrs. Massey asked Mr. Massey.
“That there would be no further litigation in the case and there would be releases signed.
Howd & Ludorf of Hartford has handled the litigation from its inception in 2004. The firm asked to withdraw from the case as of June 7th because the town’s insurance company would no longer pay the firm’s legal fees. For a variety of reasons the judge told Howd & Ludorf to stay on the case.
According to Shelley Marcus, who went before the town’s finance board Monday night after her day in court, Howd & Ludorf, which she did not identify by name, has billed the town $12,800 for its work, presumably for the month of June. Marcus did not inform the Finance Board that her law firm is also representing the town in the matter. She did not identify the case.
After the hearing ended,Judge Munro asked Ms. Massey and Mr. DeMerchant to submit written statements on the settlement issue by August 28th. She also granted a town motion to stay all further discovery, including depositions, pending her decision.
“Depending upon what happens, I will either order a new trial schedule or settlement talks,” she said.
##