Town clerks shall keep the records of their respective towns and truly enter therein, either by transcribing or by photographic, micrographic, electronic imaging or any other process approved by the Public Records Administrator, all votes of the town and give true copies of the same and of all deeds and other instruments by them recorded; and all attested copies of deeds, with a certificate of the town clerk or assistant town clerk that they have been recorded, shall be conclusive evidence of that fact. No copy of record certified by the town clerk or assistant town clerk of any town shall be deemed valid in law unless the seal of such town is affixed thereto; and the town clerk of each town or his legally qualified assistant shall affix the seal of such town to all certified copies of record, and no fee shall be allowed for affixing the same.
(1949 Rev., S. 549; 1967, P.A. 655, S. 1; P.A. 97-89, S. 6.)
History: 1967 act substituted “records” for “books”; P.A. 97-89 substituted “micrographic, electronic imaging or any other process approved by the Public Records Administrator” for “process”.
See Sec. 11-8i et seq. re historic documents preservation grant program for municipalities.
When certified copy of deed admissible. 2 R. 286; 3 D. 267; 15 C. 174; 75 C. 68; 78 C. 106. To introduce a copy a grantee must be unable to produce the original deed. 3 D. 267. Heir-at-law of grantee likewise. 16 C. 254. A certified copy is, when admissible, prima facie evidence of contents and execution. 3 D. 267; 15 C. 174; 18 C. 318. Town clerk may amend his own records. 20 C. 589. Town clerk's record is conclusive and is not to be collaterally attacked. Id., 598. Certificate of town clerk is not equivalent to official copy of record. 21 C. 109. His record stating that meeting was warned is prima facie evidence thereof. 25 C. 555; see 121 U.S. 121. Clerk's recital of legal warning is not an estoppel on town or in favor of one acting under it. 51 C. 29. Record of meeting best evidence of propositions submitted. 78 C. 110. Certified copies of deeds admissible. 126 C. 369.
Cited. 17 CA 405; 30 CA 493.
Notes of Decisions
Metro Bulletins Corp. v. Soboleski, 620 A.2d 1314 (Conn. App. Ct. 1993).
· cites it 2× “See General Statutes § 7-23. In light of the statute’s specific mandates and substantial penalties, we cannot agree with the plaintiff’s contention that § 35-1 is not a notice statute.”
Williams v. Freedom of Info. Comm'n, 948 A.2d 1058 (Conn. App. Ct. 2008).
· cites it 5× “, General Statutes §§ 7-23 (certification by town clerk) and 7-36 (certification by registrar of vital statistics); 7 which we will discuss, the act does not prescribe any particular form or content of a certification of records.”
State v. Dickman, 75 A.3d 780 (Conn. App. Ct. 2013).
· cites it 2× “, General Statutes §§ 7-23 and 47-10. *30 Assuming without deciding that a prescription document under subdivision (4) falls under subdivision (1) as well, we view the existence of subdivision (4) as an indication of the legislative intent to ensure that forgery of prescription…”
Carr v. Woolwich, 553 A.2d 625 (Conn. App. Ct. 1989).
· cites it 2× “General Statutes § 7-23 provides in pertinent part, that “[t]own clerks shall keep the records of their respective towns and truly enter therein, either by transcribing or by photographic process, all votes of the town and give true copies of the same and of all deeds and other…”
Alves v. Giegler, 348 Conn. 364 (Conn. 2024).
· cites it 5× “The court observed that, ‘‘[u]nlike some other statutes,’’ such as General Statutes § 7-23 (certification by town clerk)19 and Gen- eral Statutes § 7-36 (certification by registrar of vital statistics),20 ‘‘the [Freedom of Information Act] does not prescribe any particular form…”
2 Fraser Place Condo. Assn., Inc. v. Mathis (Conn. App. Ct. 2024).
· cites it 3× “General Statutes § 7-23. Here, although the lis pendens contained a bar-coded label showing the volume and page number as well as the time and date that it was recorded on the Hartford land records, it did not contain a town seal demonstra- ting that it was a certified copy and…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.