Bozelko v. Statewide Construction, Inc.
189 Conn. App. 469
Conn. App. Ct.2019Background
- Ronald F. Bozelko sued under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 47-31 to quiet title to a triangular parcel known as 105 McLay Avenue that abuts his property; defendants were Statewide Construction, Inc., and Robert Pesapane.
- Parties submitted competing chains of title and historical subdivision maps (a 1924 McLay Heights map and a 1983 revised map); 105 McLay Avenue is a triangular remnant created when McLay Avenue was reconfigured in the 1980s.
- Bozelko traced title through a series of deeds starting with a 1924 warranty deed; defendants produced evidence of breaks in that chain and a 2005 quitclaim conveying the parcel to Statewide Construction and a subsequent conveyance to Pesapane.
- Trial court credited defendants’ expert (Attorney Daniel C. Ioime), who testified 105 McLay Avenue fell outside the metes-and-bounds descriptions in the deeds forming Bozelko’s chain of title.
- The trial court found a break in Bozelko’s chain of title, concluded Bozelko had no right, title, or interest in 105 McLay Avenue, and quieted title in favor of the defendants.
- On appeal Bozelko argued he owned 105 McLay Avenue; the Appellate Court affirmed, holding the finding of a break in his chain of title was not clearly erroneous.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bozelko proved title to 105 McLay Ave | Bozelko argued his submitted deeds and maps show 105 McLay Ave was included in his chain of title | Defendants argued historical deeds and the 1983 map show 105 McLay Ave was outside the deeds’ descriptions and was conveyed to Statewide in 2005 | Trial court credited defendants’ expert and found a break in Bozelko’s chain; appellate court affirmed (Bozelko failed to prove title) |
| Whether the trial court erred in accepting defendants’ expert mapping testimony | Bozelko contended the evidence supporting the defendants’ chain was insufficient and experts misapplied the maps | Defendants relied on expert testimony tying deed descriptions to the maps to show exclusion of the triangle from Bozelko’s deeds | Appellate court declined to revisit credibility; court’s factual finding was supported by the record and not clearly erroneous |
| Whether McLay Avenue dedication or centerline ownership affects title | Bozelko argued errors regarding dedication and whether adjacent owners own to center of street could affect his claim | Defendants relied on deed language and maps indicating conveyed parcels’ bounds relative to McLay Avenue | Court presumed correct application of law about highway centerline; plaintiff didn’t show otherwise; no reversible error shown |
| Whether statutory or procedural defects (e.g., § 47-33 or § 47-31(d) compliance) defeated defendants’ claim | Bozelko raised several statutory and procedural challenges to defendants’ title assertions | Defendants asserted proper conveyances and that Bozelko cannot attack defendants’ title once he fails to prove his own | Because Bozelko failed to establish his own title, appellate court did not reach or overturn rulings on defendants’ ownership; plaintiff cannot prevail on weakness of defendants’ title |
Key Cases Cited
- Har v. Boreiko, 118 Conn. App. 787 (explaining plaintiff in a § 47-31 action must prevail on the strength of own title by preponderance)
- Highstead Foundation, Inc. v. Fahan, 105 Conn. App. 754 (appellate review of factual findings in title disputes is under clearly erroneous standard)
- FirstLight Hydro Generating Co. v. Stewart, 328 Conn. 668 (issue whether land is in one chain of title or another is a question of fact for the trial court)
- Stankiewicz v. Miami Beach Assn. Inc., 191 Conn. 165 (grantor cannot convey more title than possessed)
- Loewenberg v. Wallace, 147 Conn. 689 (one cannot create title in oneself merely by producing a set of deeds ending in a conveyance to oneself)
- Antenucci v. Hartford Roman Catholic Diocesan Corp., 142 Conn. 349 (absent contrary evidence, abutting owner presumptively owns to center of highway)
- Marquis v. Drost, 155 Conn. 327 (party in a quiet-title action may prevail only on the strength of own title)