[just_because]

Originally Posted by JayCT

There was this case from 2 years ago where a family lived in a house for years and sent their kids to Middlebury schools because that was their address. Previous owners of the house did the same. I can't say if they got to stay in Middlebury or not though. Jay

Family living on town line fights to stay in Middlebury - WFSB 3 Connecticut

Yes, it's very clear in the state law that it only matters where the house is and since it's fully in Waterbury, there is no ambiguity at all. They are screwed because the value of that home must be in the toilet based on it being in the Waterbury school district. Ideas that might address the situation going forward (for their kids and for the value of the home):

1. Move the home on the property so at least some of it is located in Middlebury. My understanding of the law is that they can attend either town's schools if the town line goes through the dwelling.
2. Extend the house so that part of it sits in Middlebury.

Obviously this wouldn't address the claim for payment of back 'tuition' but might put the family in a better overall financial position.

It seems that it was well known that the home was in waterbury but the issue was that the homeowner did not understand the residency rules. If the home was represented by the agent as being in the Middlebury school district then that could be another avenue of recourse. I do believe in general that towns' explanations of residency rules is very poor.

While this might be an unusual case and apparently the homeowner had no ill intent, it does show that at any moments notice, a town can come down with strict enforcement on those who try to skirt the law. In the end they may back down on the back payments if this family is truly innocent but can you imagine the guy who has fraudulently tried to claim that he lived in his rental property when he doesn't? No mercy there and no WFSB 3 on the case to support the family.

[Matrix2791]

Originally Posted by just_because

It's cheating and defrauding because that's the way the rules are written. It's not my opinion, it's the rules. I might think it's unfair that someone who makes more money than me pays less income taxes but I still have to pay according to the rules. If I don't, I'm cheating.

Obviously police protect property and people in their jurisdiction whether people or property pay taxes, live in the town, are passing through, are visiting from japan or have landed there in an alien spaceship. Simples.

You cannot attend schools in a town unless you live in that town.

you can rent and not pay taxes to the town and you can attend the schools. You can be homeless living in the town and you can attend schools in that town. You can live with a friend or relative in that town and attend schools in that town. you can own a house and be years behind on your taxes and you can attend school as long as you still live in that house.

Why is this so hard to grasp?

I understand the rules clearly..... My problem is if I write check to a town every 6 months, and I'm sorry but whether I live in that town or not I think I'm entitled to the school system. I'm amazed there hasn't been any lawsuits fighting this. For those that rent and pay no property taxes? Well if they have a healthy income, I think they should contribute something to the school system. Obviously the poor will probably be exempt from this.

[Mike 75]

Originally Posted by Matrix2791

I understand the rules clearly..... My problem is if I write check to a town every 6 months, and I'm sorry but whether I live in that town or not I think I'm entitled to the school system. I'm amazed there hasn't been any lawsuits fighting this. For those that rent and pay no property taxes? Well if they have a healthy income, I think they should contribute something to the school system. Obviously the poor will probably be exempt from this.

Agreed. Although renters indirectly pay property taxes as part of their rent.

[Two Scoops]

Originally Posted by Matrix2791

I understand the rules clearly..... My problem is if I write check to a town every 6 months, and I'm sorry but whether I live in that town or not I think I'm entitled to the school system. I'm amazed there hasn't been any lawsuits fighting this. For those that rent and pay no property taxes? Well if they have a healthy income, I think they should contribute something to the school system. Obviously the poor will probably be exempt from this.

The renters are paying the property taxes since it is bundled into their rent. The owners are just an intermediary - it is the cash from the renter's pocket that ends up in the town coffers. Consequently the renter’s children are the ones that benefit by attending the schools.

You can’t have two families getting school tuition off of one tax bill. There can only be one family that qualifies and it is the one that actually lives in the town. This is not hard to figure out folks.

[Raider111]

Originally Posted by KH02

We know someone who lives in a city in CT with less then average schools. They own a rental home in a nicer town and send their kids to school there. I always thought you had to RESIDE in the town. Is it true you don't need to live in town, just own property in the town?

Yes you have to reside in the town - as in "sleep" there every night. Whoever sleeps in the residence gets to use the public schools. The town or schools don't care who pays the prop tax as long as they're paid.
If our town's schools catch wind of someone just using an address nefariously, they put a PI on the case and do stakeouts. At least they used to, perhaps now with all these slashed budgets they may not anymore, who knows.

[Lalalally]

Originally Posted by Raider111

Yes you have to reside in the town - as in "sleep" there every night. Whoever sleeps in the residence gets to use the public schools. The town or schools don't care who pays the prop tax as long as they're paid.
If our town's schools catch wind of someone just using an address nefariously, they put a PI on the case and do stakeouts. At least they used to, perhaps now with all these slashed budgets they may not anymore, who knows.

^This. And an example of this taken to the extreme: I live in a town that borders NY State. When my husband and I were first house hunting 20+ years ago, we looked at a house that sat on the border of CT and NY (the State Line literally ran through the living room and dissected the house in almost perfect half). Taxes were paid to both the Town of New Fairfield and the Town of Patterson & Putnam County. The question of school zoning came up, and the rule as far as the Town of New Fairfield is concerned is whichever side of the state line the children's bedrooms are located in the house, determines which school the children will attend. Not where the parents (owners) sleep, but where the children sleep. Now this was before we had kids, but the bedrooms in this house were in fact on the CT side. We decided it would be too complicated from a resale standpoint and so we didn't pursue it. But towns do take this seriously. I suppose though, you could always renovate/relocate bedrooms to get into a better school system if it really mattered. lol.

[Mike 75]

Originally Posted by Two Scoops

You can’t have two families getting school tuition off of one tax bill. There can only be one family that qualifies and it is the one that actually lives in the town. This is not hard to figure out folks.

Sure you can. Multi-family houses for example. One tax bill and three families with kids, all of whom are entitled to attend schools in the town under the law.

[Raider111]

Originally Posted by Lalalally

^This. And this taken to the extreme.... I live in a town that borders NY State. When my husband and I were first house hunting 20+ years ago, we looked at a house that sat on the border of CT and NY (the State Line literally ran through the living room and dissected the house in almost perfect half). Taxes were paid to both the Town of New Fairfield and the Town of Patterson & Putnam County. The question of school zoning came up, and the rule as far as the Town of New Fairfield is concerned is whichever side of the state line the children's bedrooms are located in the house, determines which school the children will attend. Not where the parents (owners) sleep, but where the children sleep. Now this was before we had kids, but the bedrooms in this house were in fact on the CT side. We decided it would be too complicated from a resale standpoint and so we didn't pursue it. But towns do take this seriously. I suppose though, you could always renovate/relocate bedrooms to get into a better school system if it really mattered. lol.

Yeah, that can differ from place to place. Had a good friend in college who's parents house was on the rd near Main St that straddled the Trumbull/Bridgeport line. They could choose either towns school. He went to Central HS, sibling went to Trumbull HS. I know Norwalk/Westport line goes by where the master bedroom is.

[just_because]

Originally Posted by Matrix2791

I understand the rules clearly..... My problem is if I write check to a town every 6 months, and I'm sorry but whether I live in that town or not I think I'm entitled to the school system. I'm amazed there hasn't been any lawsuits fighting this. For those that rent and pay no property taxes? Well if they have a healthy income, I think they should contribute something to the school system. Obviously the poor will probably be exempt from this.

Of course we all have different opinions on things but the whole principle of public schools and many other public services is that they are there for the benefit of the residents of a place. Rental property is a business investment no different from a car wash. does the guy that owns a car wash get to send his kids to the town's schools too? Can the business send their employees there too even if they don't live in town? If paying taxes is the test, then everyone would just buy a tiny property in that desirable town.

Or are you saying it has to be a house? That sounds arbitrary if the test is that you pay taxes to that town. What if it's millions in land but no house?

What about public state colleges and universities? Would you propose that as long as you pay some taxes to the state, you get in state tuition?

It just gets ridiculous and there is no logical principle behind it.

Your idea for renters to pay tuition for schools effectively turns public schools into private schools and is frankly preposterous. Anyway renters often own cars so pay personal property tax to their town. Why doesn't that count as paying tax in your idea?

[allanny13]

Originally Posted by Mike 75

Sure you can. Multi-family houses for example. One tax bill and three families with kids, all of whom are entitled to attend schools in the town under the law.

This is why multi-family houses generally have higher property taxes than a same size SFH.