131 Conn. App. 306
Conn. App. Ct.2011Background
- Plaintiff owned secluded Guilford property; defendant adjacent property owner; property line unmarked and line location disputed.
- Defendant hired Tanner's Tree Service to remove dead trees between properties, believing trees lay on his land.
- Defendant incorrectly marked the line based on a marker near plaintiff's mailbox; actual line was 25 feet from plaintiff's house.
- Trees removed affected plaintiff's privacy; defendant later admitted error about line location.
- Plaintiff sued for intentional trespass; trial court awarded $150,000 diminution in property value; treble-damages claim under §52-560 was not awarded.
- Court held that §52-560 enhances, not exclusive, common-law trespass remedies; diminution in value permitted; affirmed judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Damages for timber trespass under §52-560 vs common law | Caciopoli argues diminution in value is valid common-law remedy | Lebowitz argues damages should be limited to trees' value under §52-560 | Damages via diminution in value permitted; §52-560 augmentative, not exclusive |
| Statute of limitations applicability | Trespass actionable under common-law; §52-584 inapplicable | §52-584 should bar the claim if time-barred | §52-584 did not apply; action timely under §52-577 |
| Waiver defense | No waiver; plaintiff not precluded from suit by accepting trees | Plaintiff waived right by accepting replacement trees | Waiver not proven; no relinquishment of right to sue |
| Equitable estoppel | Plaintiff not barred by estoppel; defendant acted independently | Plaintiff induced belief by defendant's actions | Equitable estoppel not established; defense rejected |
| Intent element of trespass | Defendant intentionally entered land to remove trees; knew or should have known lines | Intention to enter, not necessarily to injure; mistaken line location negates intent | Intent requirement satisfied; entry and removal of trees were intentional regardless of exact line knowledge |
Key Cases Cited
- Eldridge v. Gorman, 77 Conn. 699 (1905) (damages may include diminution in value of land or value of trees as commodities)
- Canton Village Construction, Inc. v. Huntington, 8 Conn.App. 144 (1986) (damages may be diminution in land value due to cutting trees)
- Stanley v. Lincoln, 75 Conn.App. 781 (2003) (proper damages include diminution in market value of real property)
- Palmieri v. Cirino, 90 Conn.App. 841 (2005) (diminution in value may be available; replacement costs not always recoverable)
- Ventres v. Goodspeed Airport, LLC, 275 Conn. 105 (2005) (treble damages under §52-560 limited to value of trees as commodities; preemption discussed)
- Bristol v. Tilcon Minerals, Inc., 284 Conn. 55 (2007) (trespass damages may include diminution in value; intent and elements outlined)
- Porter v. Thrane, 98 Conn.App. 336 (2006) (appraiser testimony foundation; admissibility considerations)