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 COURT
ANGELO MELISI J.D. OF ANSONIAJMILFORD
V. AT MILFORD
STATE MARSHAL ARTHUR DAVIES and
TOWN OF OXFORD MARCH 12,2013
COMPLAINT
FACTS 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 property
tax 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 Arthur
Davies who represented that the owner of the property owed taxes, interest and other fees in the
amount of approximately $1,245,906.
3. The Defendant, State Marshal Arthur Davies, represented that the successful
bidder would own the property free and clear of any of the prior owner's interests which would
be exstinguished as a result of the tax sale.
4. Prior to the auction, the Defendant, Town of Oxford, had started a foreclosure
action 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 to
disclose that the tax collector had been arrested and/or convicted of stealing tax payer's
payments.
6. The Defendant, State Marshal Arthur Davies, did not disclose to the Plaintiff that
the property owner had filed a declaratory judgment seeking an injunctive relief against the
Defendant, Arthur Davies, as well as the Defendant, Town of Oxford and the Tax Collector
-1
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 defrauded
them 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 auction
and he bid $600,000 for the property and provided the Defendant, Davies, a bank check in the
amount 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 attorney
stating they did not owe the taxes, they hired an independent CPA to prove that they overpaid
the taxes and they would be vigorously litigating any attempts to possess the property or
interfere 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 requested
a meeting with the Defendant, Arthur Davies, and the Defendant, Town of Oxford, through its
First Selectman, George Temple.
11. During the meeting, the First Selectman, George Temple, represented that the
town would return the Plaintiffs $100,000 deposit if the Town's attorney could not get the
litigation 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 to
determine whether the Defendants could provide clear title and a resolution of the lawsuit
pending by the current owner.
FIRST COUNT: (Fraudulent Non-Disclosure)
1-12. Paragraphs 1 through 12 of the Facts are hereby incorporated and made
Paragraphs 1 through 12 of the First Count.
13, After the six month period, the Defendants have not resolved their dispute with
the current owner or the pending lawsuit and have failed to return the Plaintiffs deposit.
14. The Defendant's, State Marshal Arthur Davies, intentional withholding of
information to the Plaintiff about the foreclosure proceeding and injunction filed prior to the
-2
Law Office of
Mulvey, Oliver, Gould &
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 cause
the Plaintiff to continue to bid on the property.
15. The fraudulent non-disclosures caused the Plaintiff to bid when in fact, had it
been disclosed that there was a dispute about whether taxes were owed, the Plaintiff would not
have 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 made
paragraphs 1 through 12 of the Second Count.
13. The representations by the Defendants that the Plaintiff would own the property
free and clear of any claims of the current owner was a false representation made as a statement
of fact, was a statement that was untrue and known to be so by the Defendants since there was a
withdrawal of the foreclosure action and knowledge of an injunction filed the day before the tax
auction.
14. The Defendants' statements were made with the intent of inducing the Plaintiff
to rely thereupon and therefore bid on the property, and the Plaintiff relied on the statement to
his detriment.
15. The Defendants' fraudulent misrepresentation was made with reckless disregard
of the truth for the purpose of inducing action by the Plaintiff to bid on the property thereupon
causing the Plaintiff damages.
THIRD COUNT: (Breach of Contract)
1-12. Paragraphs 1 through 12 of the Facts are hereby incorporated and made
paragraphs 1 through 12 of the Third Count.
13. The Defendants' failure to return the Plaintiff's deposit is a breach of their
agreement to do so since they were unable to resolve the litigation with the current owner
within six months and provide the Plaintiff with a deed that he owned the property.
FOURTH COUNT: (Unjust Enrichment)
-3
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
1 12. Paragraphs 1 through 12 of the Facts are hereby incorporated and made
paragraphs 1 through 12 of the Fourth Count
13. Subsequent to the meeting with the Defendants concerning the claim that the
taxes 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 to
refund 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 made
paragraphs 1 through 12 of the Fifth Count
13. The Defendants failed to hold the Plaintiffs deposit in trust, but rather cashed
the check and turned the proceeds over to the Defendant, Town of Oxford, which was a
wrongful detention of the Plaintiffs personal property.
14. The Defendants were not able to settle the litigation with the current owner and
provide the Defendant with the deed for the property after the six month redemption period and
failed to return the deposit
15. The Defendants' actions in the wrongful detention of the deposit has caused the
Plaintiff to be damaged.
SIXTH COUNT: (CUTPA)
1-12. Paragraphs 1 through 12 of the Facts are hereby incorporated and made
paragraphs 1 through 12 of the Sixth Count.
13. The Defendants engaged in unfair competition and unfair and deceptive trade
practices in violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, Connecticut General
Statute 42-110a et seq., in the Defendants' actions set forth above are:
a. A violation of public policy, the common law or other concepts of
unfairness;
b. Immoral, unethical or unscrupulous;
-4
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
c. Causes a substantial injury to consumers, competitors or other business
persons.
14. As a result of the foregoing unfair and improper conduct of the Defendants, the
Plaintiff has suffered ascertainable loss.
15. The Defendants' conduct amounted to a reckless indifference to the rights of
others or an intentional and wanton violation of those rights.
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 ,1
Mulvey Oliver Gould & Crotta
83 Trumbull Street
New Haven Connecticut, 06511
Phone: (203)624-5111
Fax: (203)789-8371
[email protected]
-6
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 COURT
ANGELO MELISI J.D. OF ANSONIAIMILFORD
V. AT MILFORD
STATE MARSHAL ARTHUR DAVIES and
TOWN OF OXFORD MARCH 12,2013
AD DAMNUM
The Plaintiff in the above-entitled action claims money damages in excess of
$15,000.00.
THE PLAINTIFF,


Mulvey Oliver Gould & Crotta
83 Trumbull Street
New Haven Connecticut, 06511
Phone: (203)624-5111
Fax: (203)789-8371
[email protected]
-7
.
EXHIBIT A

2012-07-02 07;33 ABOUSHI 7187013455 1203777 2096
P2i2
.
EXHIBIT A
THE ABOlJSll1 I-.lAW
501 5th Avenue, Suite 305. New York, NY 10017
264 Lakeview Avenue, Clifton, NJ 07011
Tel: Fax: 646-367-4925 \\lww.Aboushi.com
July 2, 2012
Mr. Slephen R. Bellis
The Pellegrino Law Firm. P.C.
475 Whitney Avenue
New Haven. CT 06511
Via: Facsimile to (203) 777-2096
Rc: JJT&M
Mr. Bellis:
I represent JJT&M and lun writing in reference to your representation of the
successful bidder at the auction of 11T&M's real estah:. Please know that our position is
that my client does not owe the taxes alleged to be owed. We have cancelled cnecks as
well as a report from an independent CPA to prove that my client actually over-paid its
taxes. It is clear that the fonner tax collector converted tax including my
client's payments, and that this n0I1-judicial tax auction is the Town's way of abdicating
responsibiliLy for thcir failure to supervise ber. Moreover, the Town recently withdrew a
tax foreclosure action against my client because it apparently realized that it could never
succeed in a lax toreclosure through the judicial process. Because the Town cannot
justify the tax foreclosure action Or prove that taxes are owed by my client. its only
option was to conduct a non-judicial tax auction,
This neliuious and illegal attempt 10 deprive my client of its property right.s wil[ be
vigorously litigated. To that end, we have filed an action against the Town to restrain the
Town from further interfering with my client's property rights. We also intend to pursue
multiple t0l1 claims against the Town. That being said, please be advised that if your
client attempts to possess my client's real estate, or in any way interfere wilh my cJienrs
property 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.