Firstlight Hydro Generating Co. v. Stewart, 182 A.3d 67

FirstLight (successor to Connecticut Light & Power Company, CL & P) owns the bed and shoreline of Candlewood Lake per historical conveyances and a 1927 Rocky River datum defining a 440-foot contour line.
CL & P conveyed some parcels in the 1920s–1930s; a 1934 deed and subsequent subdivision maps describe boundaries by reference to the 440-foot contour and metes-and-bounds monuments.
Defendants Stewart and Arpaia own a waterfront parcel (lot 52 and parcel C on town maps) adjacent to the plaintiff's shoreline; title derives from deeds and maps that reference the 440-foot contour.
Defendants sought and received permits from FirstLight in 2013–2014 to build improvements partially on FirstLight land, but allegedly exceeded the permit scope and continued construction after warnings.
FirstLight sued for trespass and sought injunctive relief to remove unauthorized structures; the trial court found FirstLight owned the disputed shoreline and that defendants trespassed, then ordered removal/restoration of enumerated improvements.
On appeal defendants challenged (1) sufficiency of evidence of plaintiff's ownership and (2) scope of the injunction as overly broad relative to the permits.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether plaintiff proved ownership/possessory interest in the disputed shoreline	Expert surveys and historic deeds/maps (including 1934 deed, town maps, and prior surveys) establish the 440-ft contour boundary and FirstLight's title as successor to CL & P	Boundary is ambiguous; experts did not field-verify the 1927 Rocky River datum mark referenced in the 1934 deed, so ownership not proved	Trial court findings on boundary and ownership were supported by expert testimony and documents and were not clearly erroneous; trespass established
Whether injunctive relief was overly broad/exceeded relief sought	Injunction targets unauthorized work outside the plaintiff's boundary; removal/restoration of structures on plaintiff's land is proper	Lower patio and adjacent retaining wall were permitted (May 13, 2014) and injunction improperly requires full removal	Court construes injunction to require removal/restoration only to the extent structures exceed or violate the permit; defendants may rebuild compliant lower sitting area and retaining wall per permit

Miller v. Westport, 268 Conn. 207 (standard of review for factual findings and legal conclusions)
Bristol v. Tilcon Minerals, Inc., 284 Conn. 55 (elements of trespass and weight/credibility of expert testimony)
Feuer v. Henderson, 181 Conn. 454 (title inclusion and boundary as question of fact)
Har v. Boreiko, 118 Conn. App. 787 (applying clearly erroneous standard to boundary findings)
24 Leggett Street Ltd. Partnership v. Beacon Industries, Inc., 239 Conn. 284 (definition of clearly erroneous standard)
O'Connor v. Larocque, 302 Conn. 562 (appellate review limited to record; do not retry facts)
Cummings v. Tripp, 204 Conn. 67 (trial court discretion in injunctive relief)
Walton v. New Hartford, 223 Conn. 155 (review for abuse of discretion or legal error in injunctions)
Barca v. Mongillo, 133 Conn. 374 (use of adjoining owner deeds to establish common boundary)
Velsmid v. Nelson, 175 Conn. 221 (reliance on monuments of adjoining owner to establish boundary)