Caminis v. Troy
12 A.3d 984
Conn.2011Background
- Neighbors along the Five Mile River dispute whether dock and pilings on the defendants' shore encroach on the plaintiffs' littoral rights.
- The 1957 and 1984 state permits authorized reconstruction of a dock and pilings but stated permits do not convey property rights.
- The dock was rebuilt in 1985; plaintiffs learned of potential encroachment but did not survey boundary until 2000.
- Plaintiffs filed suit in 2005 seeking declaratory judgment, damages, and injunction; trial court found encroachment but denied injunction due to laches.
- Appellate Court affirmed laches as to injunction but reversed on declaratory relief; this Court granted certification on liability questions.
- Court addresses whether adverse possession or statute of limitations bars plaintiffs' claims and whether permits affect the claim of right.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does laches bar the injunction claim? | Caminis argues laches does not bar equitable relief. | Troy contends laches bars injunctive relief. | Yes; laches barred the injunction. |
| Does laches bar the declaratory judgment claim as a matter of law? | Caminis contends laches does not bar declaratory relief. | Troy asserts laches bars declaratory relief as well. | Yes; laches barred declaratory judgment as a matter of law. |
| Have the defendants adverse possessed the contested littoral area? | Plaintiffs argue lack of proof of adverse possession due to permits and boundary disputes. | Defendants contend evidence shows fifteen-year exclusive possession under a claim of right. | Yes; defendants proved adverse possession. |
| Do permits defeat a claim of right for adverse possession? | Permits negate any claim of right to possess the littoral area. | Permits do not preclude a claim of right for adverse possession. | No; permits did not bar a claim of right for adverse possession. |
| Is the fifteen-year § 52-575 period satisfied by tacking Morgan's possession to the defendants'? | Plaintiffs contend the period cannot be satisfied due to lack of privity or timely action. | Defendants argue privity via purchase and continued possession tacks Morgan's period to theirs. | Yes; § 52-575 period satisfied by tacking. |
Key Cases Cited
- Matto v. Dan Beard, Inc., 15 Conn.App. 458 (Conn. App. 1988) (clarified adverse possession claims under permits be analyzed for right to possess)
- Bloom v. Water Resources Commission, 157 Conn. 528 (Conn. 1969) (permit not granting rights against adjacent littoral owners; no hearing required)
- Wildwood Associates, Ltd. v. Esposito, 211 Conn. 36 (Conn. 1989) (defines clear and convincing proof standard in adverse possession)
- Eberhart v. Meadow Haven, Inc., 111 Conn.App. 636 (Conn. App. 2008) (explains claim of right and use under adverse possession context)
- Smith v. Chapin, 31 Conn. 530 (Conn. 1863) (early articulation of tacking/privity concept for possession claims)