Connole v. Babij
2013 WL 238500
Conn. App. Ct.2013Background
- Plaintiffs Connole (Robert Michael, Nancy) and Maguire sue Babij over a right-of-way on Highland Lake Road abutting their properties.
- Trial court found Babij owner by deed, and that abutting landowners had limited passage rights; plaintiffs also had prescriptive easements.
- Trial court ordered annual fee of $100 for passage by foot/bicycle, with forfeiture for nonpayment, and allowed motorized passage over part of the way; injunctions issued.
- Court acknowledged deeds lacked express limits and that plaintiffs had deeded easements; also found no marketable title by Babij and that adverse possession was not proven.
- Appellate court reverses fee/forfeiture and ownership conclusions; otherwise affirms other aspects, and vacates those parts.
- Court notes plaintiffs’ chain of title and that the evidence did not establish Babij’s marketable fee title; prescriptive easements evidence deemed extraneous to this appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether easements were converted into a license subject to an annual fee. | Connole argues plaintiffs hold easements, not a license. | Babij contends the right-of-way was a license requiring annual payment. | Court erred; easements exist, no license. |
| Whether the plaintiffs had deeded easements over the right-of-way. | Plaintiffs rely on deeded rights of passage. | Record title not clearly showing Babij’s fee; claims unresolved. | Court found deeded easements existed; extraneous prescriptive-easement finding not dispositive. |
| Whether Babij owned the fee to the right-of-way based on deeded interest. | Plaintiffs claim Babij lacked marketable title to the fee. | Babij asserts ownership by deed. | Evidence insufficient to establish marketable fee title; reverse related judgment. |
| Whether the trial court properly resolved title and equitable relief given lack of cross-appeal on prescriptive easements. | N/A | Prescriptive easements not properly on appeal due to no cross-appeal. | Court declines to address prescriptive-easement claim on appeal. |
Key Cases Cited
- McManus v. Roggi, 78 Conn. App. 288 (Conn. App. 2003) (Easement vs. license distinction; property interest vs. privilege)
- Clean Corp. v. Foston, 33 Conn. App. 197 (Conn. App. 1993) (License does not run with land; easement is a property interest)
- Kakalik v. Bernardo, 184 Conn. 386 (Conn. 1981) (Equitable discretion in shaping relief; not a license)