317 Conn. 157
Conn.2015Background
- Three contiguous parcels on the Connecticut River: Gorman (west), Kahn (middle), Deane (east). A private riverside route extends east from Brockway’s Ferry Road across Gorman and Kahn to Deane’s riverfront.
- 1935: Harriet Warner reserved "a right of way . . . in perpetuity along the route now in use" in a deed conveying the Gorman parcel to Walter Hastings; the deed lacked detailed location, dimensions, or words of inheritance.
- 1960: Caples (heir) split the remainder of Warner’s estate, conveying the Kahn parcel and the Deane parcel separately; the Kahn deed created a driveway and mutual boundary easement over Deane but did not reference the 1935 reservation.
- Trial court found (1) an express easement by deed over Gorman arising from the 1935 reservation, and (2) an easement by necessity over Kahn arising in 1960 because Deane’s riverfront was effectively inaccessible from its upland portion.
- Appellate Court reversed both findings, concluding insufficient evidence of the easement’s location/use in 1935 and that the Deane parcel was not entitled to an easement by necessity at severance.
- Supreme Court certified review: it (a) reverses Appellate Court as to the Gorman deeded easement (affirming trial court), (b) affirms Appellate Court that no easement by necessity arose over Kahn, and (c) remands for further proceedings on an unadjudicated easement-by-implication claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 1935 reservation created an enforceable easement by deed and whether evidence beyond 1935 may prove its location/use | Deane: 1935 reservation plus post-1935 testimony/maps reasonably show the route and use; post-conveyance evidence probative if reasonably related to 1935 circumstances | Gorman: Only evidence contemporaneous with 1935 is probative; reservation lacked specificity and words of inheritance so presumed in gross | Court: Trial court properly considered near-term post-1935 evidence; sufficient factual support for an easement by deed appurtenant; reverse Appellate Court and affirm trial court on this count |
| Whether the 1935 reservation was appurtenant (ran with dominant land) despite lacking words of inheritance | Deane: surrounding circumstances ("in perpetuity," benefit to riverfront, recognition by subsequent owners) show intent appurtenant | Gorman: Presumption that absence of heirs/assigns indicates an easement in gross; no identified dominant estate | Court: Circumstances (value to dominant land, prior recognition, "in perpetuity") rebut presumption; easement held appurtenant |
| Whether an easement by necessity arose in 1960 over Kahn when Caples severed the dominant estate, because Deane’s riverfront was "effectively landlocked" | Deane: lower, riverfront portion lacked reasonable vehicular access from upper parcel; reasonable necessity suffices (Hollywyle/Marshall) | Defendants: Deane was not landlocked; easement by necessity requires landlocked parcel or connection to public road; Marshall is narrow exception | Court: Marshall’s narrow rule not extended; because parcel was not landlocked and trial court did not show cost-of-access exceeded property value, no easement by necessity; affirm Appellate Court on this point |
| Whether the case should be remanded on easement by implication over Kahn | Deane: alternative theory; trial court findings might support implication | Defendants: trial court decided only necessity, no implication finding | Court: Trial court did not adjudicate implication; factual findings may be insufficient or incidental; remand to trial court to consider easement by implication |
Key Cases Cited
- Il Giardino, LLC v. Belle Haven Land Co., 254 Conn. 502 (2000) (extrinsic evidence may clarify ambiguous conveyance language)
- McBurney v. Paquin, 302 Conn. 359 (2011) (scope of easement is fact question; limits on remote post-conveyance evidence)
- Kelly v. Ivler, 187 Conn. 31 (1982) (circumstances can rebut presumption that reservation lacking heirs words is personal; benefit to land and recognition by servient owner are significant)
- Marshall v. Martin, 107 Conn. 32 (1927) (narrow rule allowing easement by necessity where alternative access cost would exceed property value)
- Hollywyle Assn., Inc. v. Hollister, 164 Conn. 389 (1973) (easement by necessity requires reasonable necessity; examines necessity test)
- Branch v. Occhionero, 239 Conn. 199 (1996) (burden on party claiming appurtenance and plenary review of intent)
- Robinson v. Clapp, 65 Conn. 365 (1895) (historical explanation that necessity presumption supplies evidence of intent to grant)