164 Conn.App. 279
Conn. App. Ct.2016Background
- Plaintiff William Francini owns a parcel in East Haddam that lacks direct access to public highway and is landlocked from commercial electricity; his only physical access crosses defendant Goodspeed Airport, LLC’s property via an existing general right-of-way.
- Several neighbors obtained the defendant’s permission (and paid $7,500 each) to install a commercial utility distribution system under the existing right-of-way; Francini declined the defendant’s additional terms and did not get access to those utilities.
- Francini operates his house on a generator, which he alleges is insufficient to provide safe, automatic, and continuous power for modern residential needs (sump pump, security, refrigerators, remote occupancy, etc.).
- Francini sued seeking an easement by necessity to connect to commercial utilities across the defendant’s right-of-way; the defendant moved for summary judgment, admitting the factual allegations for the motion but arguing easements by necessity are limited to physical ingress/egress.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendant on that legal ground; the appellate court reversed, holding easements by necessity may include access to utilities and that disputed factual allegations about the generator’s adequacy precluded summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether easement by necessity may be implied to access commercial utilities | Easement by necessity should extend to utilities because utility access is reasonably necessary for beneficial use of modern property | Easements by necessity are limited to providing physical ingress and egress to landlocked parcels | Court held easements by necessity may include access to utilities (e.g., electricity) as part of reasonable use and enjoyment of land |
| Whether Francini satisfied the necessity element given his use of a generator | Generator is insufficient; commercial electricity is necessary for safe, reasonable use | Generator is a reasonable substitute for commercial electricity | Court found factual allegations of inadequacy prevented deciding necessity as a matter of law and reversed summary judgment |
| Whether existing general right-of-way limits allowable uses | General grants permit any reasonable use connected to enjoyment of dominant estate, including modern utilities | Defendant contended right-of-way was for ingress/egress only | Court held a general right-of-way may be used for utilities when reasonably necessary and not unduly burdensome |
| Whether granting utility easement would unreasonably burden servient estate | Connection to preexisting utility lines would impose minimal additional burden; costs shared if multiple beneficiaries | Defendant argued potential burden and refusal justified | Court concluded alleged minimal burden (and existing utilities) supported denying summary judgment; merits to be determined later |
Key Cases Cited
- Hollywyle Assn., Inc. v. Hollister, 164 Conn. 389 (establishes classical easement by necessity concept)
- Deane v. Kahn, 317 Conn. 157 (discusses strict vs. reasonable necessity and limits on easement-by-necessity doctrine)
- Birdsey v. Kosienski, 140 Conn. 403 (construes general grants broadly to permit reasonable uses)
- Myers v. Dunn, 49 Conn. 71 (demonstrates necessity can evolve over time; general grants coextensive with reasonable needs)
- D'Amato v. Weiss, 141 Conn. 713 (necessity present where easement is highly convenient and beneficial)
- Galvin v. Gaffney, 24 F. Supp. 2d 223 (D. Conn.) (magistrate judge concluded Connecticut law permits easements by necessity for commercial utilities)