Francini v. Goodspeed Airport, LLC
174 A.3d 779
Conn.2018Background
- Francini owns a residential lot that is landlocked except for an existing deeded right-of-way across Goodspeed Airport, LLC’s property; the 1999 warranty deed recognized the right-of-way without specific use limits.
- Several neighbors obtained and paid for a utility distribution system installed under that existing right-of-way in 2001; Francini was refused similar terms when he offered to pay.
- Francini sued seeking a declaratory judgment and injunction establishing an easement by necessity to install underground commercial utilities across the defendant’s property.
- The trial court granted defendant’s summary judgment, holding Connecticut law permits easements by necessity only for ingress and egress, not utilities.
- The Appellate Court reversed, concluding easements by necessity may include utilities; the Connecticut Supreme Court granted certification and affirmed the Appellate Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether easements by necessity may include commercial utilities over a preexisting right-of-way | Francini: easement by necessity can expand existing access easement to permit utilities reasonably necessary for beneficial use | Goodspeed: easements by necessity are limited to ingress/egress; utilities require strict necessity and cannot be implied | Held: Yes — when a preexisting access easement exists, it may be expanded to include utilities if reasonably necessary and not unreasonably burdensome to servient owner |
| Standard to determine scope of such an easement | Francini: apply reasonable necessity, consider intent and beneficial enjoyment | Goodspeed: require strict necessity / consider substitutes and strict limits | Held: Apply a balancing test — reasonable necessity, parties’ intent at severance (including foreseeable technological change), and relative burdens/enjoyment |
| Relevance of technological developments since severance | Francini: modern utilities reasonably anticipated; courts should allow reasonable technological adaptations | Goodspeed: scope should be judged by conditions at time of severance | Held: Courts should consider modern, reasonably foreseeable developments when assessing intent and necessity; not limited strictly to original-era uses |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate on facts presented | Francini: disputed material facts exist about necessity and burden | Goodspeed: facts show no legal right to utilities as matter of law | Held: Summary judgment improper — genuine issue of material fact exists; remand for factfinding and balancing |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. Jefferson County Telephone Co., 95 S.E. 1042 (W. Va. 1918) (recognized utility lines as reasonable use of an existing right-of-way to permit modern conveniences)
- Tong v. Feldman, 136 A. 822 (Md. 1927) (easements by necessity coextensive with reasonable present and future needs of dominant estate)
- New York Cent. R.R. Co. v. Yarian, 39 N.E.2d 604 (Ind. 1942) (express reservations of ways construed to permit rights sufficient for full reasonable enjoyment, including electricity)
- Dowgiel v. Reid, 59 A.2d 115 (Pa. 1948) (permitted utility easement along express right-of-way as essential to livableness)
- Morrell v. Rice, 622 A.2d 1156 (Me. 1993) (easement by necessity can include utilities essential for modern uses)
- Deane v. Kahn, 116 A.3d 259 (Conn. 2015) (Connecticut easement-by-necessity principles and three-part access test)