186 Conn. App. 618
Conn. App. Ct.2018Background
- Plaintiffs Peter Gaughan and Jacqueline McGann own 8 White Road; defendant Peter J. Higgins owns adjoining 51 South Road. A triangular strip of land along their common boundary (including a hedgerow) was disputed.
- The 1991 warranty deed to the plaintiffs describes the 8 White Road parcel by metes, bounds, and three iron pins; surveys and testimony addressed whether the disputed strip falls inside that deed description.
- Plaintiffs sued in 2016 seeking, inter alia, to quiet title, trespass damages, slander of title, and adverse possession. Defendant counterclaimed for quiet title and water damage.
- After a bench trial the court quieted title for the plaintiffs, found defendant trespassed (awarding $100 nominal damages), denied punitive damages and attorney’s fees, found for defendant on slander of title, and awarded plaintiffs costs that included $2,500 in their surveyor’s expert fees.
- On appeal, the defendant challenged the court’s crediting of plaintiffs’ surveyor, several factual findings (including pin locations and boundary showings), the trespass finding, and the award of expert fees as taxable costs. Plaintiffs cross-appealed the denial of punitive damages/attorney’s fees and the ruling on slander of title.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Credibility of expert surveyors / deed interpretation | Heintz’s survey and methodology support that deed includes disputed strip. | Saunders’ survey and methodology establish deed does not include disputed strip; court improperly ignored his analysis. | Court credited plaintiffs’ surveyor; appellate court defers to trial court credibility determinations and rejects defendant’s challenge. |
| Factual findings on pin locations and boundary showing | Plaintiffs: deed description and surveys (Clarke, Heintz) place disputed area within plaintiffs’ parcel; defendant showed Pierre Gaughan the pins including disputed area. | Higgins: testimony contradicts that he showed the disputed area; Heintz’s memory and maps were inconsistent. | Most factual findings supported by evidence and not clearly erroneous; one isolated error (pins present at trial) was acknowledged but not outcome-determinative. |
| Trespass liability | Plaintiffs: defendant intentionally entered and altered plaintiffs’ land (swale, markings). | Defendant: trespass finding depends on erroneous ownership finding. | Because ownership finding stands, trespass ruling upheld; defendant did not contest other trespass elements. |
| Taxability of surveyor expert fees as costs | Plaintiffs: sought reimbursement of Heintz’s $2,500 as part of bill of costs. | Defendant: §52-260(f) lists reimbursable experts and does not include land surveyors; trial court lacked authority to tax those fees. | Reversed as to this award — a land surveyor is not a §52-260(f) listed expert; court lacked authority to tax those fees as costs. |
| Punitive damages / attorney’s fees | Plaintiffs: markings, spraying, and other conduct showed wanton/reckless disregard warranting punitive damages and fees. | Defendant: actions stemmed from sincere belief he owned the strip; no reckless indifference shown. | Trial court’s finding that defendant acted under a belief of ownership was not clearly erroneous; denial of punitive damages and fees affirmed. |
| Slander of title (notice of revocation served by state marshal) | Plaintiffs: service on state marshal constitutes publication to a third party and caused special (pecuniary) damages. | Defendant: notice was intended for plaintiffs only; marshal as delivery agent is not publication to third parties; no pecuniary loss shown. | Court correctly found no publication to third parties, no shown special damages, and no reckless disregard; slander claim failed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Har v. Boreiko, 118 Conn. App. 787 (2010) (factfinder may credit expert testimony and resolve conflicting surveys)
- Builders Serv. Corp. v. Planning & Zoning Comm'n, 208 Conn. 267 (1988) (trial court must have record basis to reject expert testimony)
- Arnone v. Enfield, 79 Conn. App. 501 (2003) (costs are creatures of statute; non-listed expert costs not taxable)
- Collens v. New Canaan Water Co., 155 Conn. 477 (1967) (punitive damages require wanton or reckless disregard; belief may not preclude award depending on facts)
- Berry v. Loiseau, 223 Conn. 786 (1992) (standard for awarding punitive/exemplary damages)
- Traystman, Coric & Keramidas, P.C. v. Daigle, 282 Conn. 418 (2007) (distinguishing clerk’s ministerial taxation of routine costs from court determination of non-automatic costs)