230 Conn.App. 616
Conn. App. Ct.2025Background
- In 1951, Marie Cook conveyed a five-acre parcel (the property including a disputed 1.46-acre parcel) to George J. Ressler (George I) with a deed describing boundaries and acreage.
- In 1975, George I conveyed the property to his grandson, George M. Ressler (George II), by a deed stating "four acres, more or less" but using the same boundary description as the 1951 deed.
- The plaintiff, Myron Camozzi, acquired the property after a series of conveyances and disputes, with varying acreage calls and surveys.
- A subsequent foreclosure led to a transfer of the property—using the same boundary descriptions—to the bank, then Fannie Mae, and ultimately to defendant Eric Pierce in 2020.
- Camozzi continued to occupy the disputed parcel and filed suit seeking declaratory judgment and other relief, claiming ownership of the disputed parcel; Pierce counterclaimed to quiet title.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 1975 deed conveyed the disputed parcel to George II | Deed conveyed only 4 acres and George I retained the disputed parcel (based on acreage call) | The 1975 and 1951 deeds had the same boundary descriptions, so the whole parcel—including the disputed parcel—was conveyed | The 1975 deed conveyed the entire property, including the disputed parcel; boundary descriptions prevail over acreage calls |
| Whether boundary descriptions or acreage calls control deed interpretation | Acreage call is more reliable and precise; boundary description shouldn't override clear acreage | Boundary description is more reliable than acreage call, especially when both deeds use the same boundary | Boundary descriptions are most reliable; acreage calls are less reliable (especially when "more or less" is used) |
| Whether there was evidence the disputed parcel was severed or separate property | Historical occupancy, improvement, separate surveys, tax and insurance payments show disputed parcel was separate | No deed or record shows a separate conveyance of the disputed parcel; surveys not referenced in title chain are irrelevant | No evidence (other than the acreage call) supports the notion the parcel was severed; boundary descriptions control |
| Whether plaintiff's subsequent occupation gave title by adverse possession | Plaintiff has openly possessed and maintained the disputed parcel | Plaintiff's possession did not meet adverse possession requirements; title never left chain | Plaintiff could not prove adverse possession since he was record owner until 2019 |
Key Cases Cited
- Koennicke v. Maiorano, 43 Conn. App. 1 (boundary descriptions referencing adjoining owners prevail over acreage calls)
- Thurlow v. Hulten, 173 Conn. App. 694 (acreage calls are less reliable; "more or less" language not precise)
- Marshall v. Soffer, 58 Conn. App. 737 (adjoining owner descriptions are reliable calls for boundary)
- U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Palmer, 88 Conn. App. 330 (acreage call is the least reliable way to describe land in a deed)
- Gleason v. Atkins, 225 Conn. App. 745 (interpretation of deed language and boundary ambiguities)