194 Conn.App. 120
Conn. App. Ct.2019Background
- Plaintiffs own 37 Mill Stream Rd; defendant owns adjoining 59 Mill Stream Rd in the Saw Mill Association subdivision. Both deeds reference prior restrictions.
- 1956 deed from original grantors (Havemeyer) to developer Empire Estates contained a covenant limiting the conveyed premises to private residential purposes and stated that the covenant would enure to the benefit of the grantors’ remaining land.
- 1961 declaration by Empire Estates (recorded) imposed additional restrictions, including Article 2 (no animals/poultry except household pets unless neighbors consent in writing for up to two years) and Article 8 (commercial vehicles must be kept in a garage except for brief loading/unloading).
- Defendant admitted operating a landscaping business from her property, kept chickens (removed before trial but coops remained), and parked vehicles used in the business, including a Dodge pickup.
- Plaintiffs sued for injunctive relief to stop chickens and commercial activity; trial court found a common development scheme, held plaintiffs had standing, and issued broad injunctive orders. On appeal the court affirmed enforcement of Article 2 but reversed/vacated other parts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to enforce 1956 deed restriction limiting use to residential | Plaintiffs argued both parcels are in same subdivision and their deeds reference the 1956 restriction, so they may enforce it under a common development theory | Defendant argued the 1956 deed expressly reserved the benefit to the original grantors and their retained land, so plaintiffs lack standing | Held: Plaintiffs lacked standing to enforce the 1956 covenant; it inured to benefit of original grantors, not grantees, so court lacked jurisdiction over that claim |
| Injunctive relief re: commercial vehicle (Article 8) | Plaintiffs argued their complaint sought broad relief against any commercial activity and defendant had fair notice | Defendant argued plaintiffs were denied leave to amend to assert Article 8 and the operative complaint did not plead that claim | Held: Relief under Article 8 was improper because plaintiffs did not plead that claim; injunction orders based on Article 8 vacated |
| Mootness of chicken claim after chickens removed | Plaintiffs argued removal did not moot claim because coops remained, defendant still owned chickens elsewhere, and injunction would provide practical relief preventing return | Defendant argued voluntary removal rendered claim moot so injunctive relief was improper | Held: Not moot; voluntary cessation standard not satisfied and practical relief remained available, so claim justiciable |
| Scope of injunction re: chickens vs. Article 2 exceptions | Plaintiffs sought blanket prohibition on chickens | Defendant argued Article 2 permits neighbor consent for temporary exceptions and court erred by barring chickens forever | Held: Court may enforce Article 2 but its blanket prohibition was overbroad; injunction vacated and remanded to craft relief consistent with Article 2 (allowing neighbor-consent exceptions) |
Key Cases Cited
- Bueno v. Firgeleski, 180 Conn. App. 384 (Conn. App. 2018) (describes three classes of restrictive covenants and enforcement rules)
- DaSilva v. Barone, 83 Conn. App. 365 (Conn. App. 2004) (factors for finding a common development scheme)
- Stamford v. Vuono, 108 Conn. 359 (Conn. 1928) (mutual covenants and enforcement between adjoining owners)
- Maganini v. Hodgson, 138 Conn. 188 (Conn. 1951) (enforcement under a general development scheme when grantor subdivides with uniform restrictions)
- Mellitz v. Sunfield Co., 103 Conn. 177 (Conn. 1925) (covenant running with land enforceable by grantor or owner of remaining land)
- Morgenbesser v. Aquarion Water Co. of Conn., 276 Conn. 825 (Conn. 2006) (restrictive covenants construed narrowly and against extension by implication)
- Gino’s Pizza of East Hartford, Inc. v. Kaplan, 193 Conn. 135 (Conn. 1984) (court obligated to enforce covenant unless inequitable)
- Watson Real Estate, LLC v. Woodland Ridge, LLC, 187 Conn. App. 282 (Conn. App. 2019) (plaintiff limited to relief pleaded; judgment on issues not pleaded may be void)
- Boisvert v. Gavis, 332 Conn. 115 (Conn. 2019) (voluntary cessation doctrine and heavy burden to show challenged conduct will not recur)