225 Conn.App. 745
Conn. App. Ct.2024Background
- Plaintiffs, Mary and Keavy Ann Gleason, brought an action to quiet title and for trespass regarding a strip of land (the unpaved shoulder of a public highway) south of a lakefront parcel on Lake Waramaug in New Preston.
- Both plaintiffs' and defendant's properties were part of a subdivision created from the Quinlan land, subdivided by a map in 1970.
- Plaintiffs’ deed gives them exclusive use (in common with other lot owners) of a lakefront parcel but not direct title. The deed described the southern boundary as “the state highway known as West Shore Road.”
- Defendant, Paul Atkins, owns Lot #10, which includes land abutting the disputed strip and the unpaved shoulder. He constructed a fence and hedge (with state approval) within the highway easement, leading to the dispute.
- Plaintiffs claimed their exclusive-use right covered up to the paved road; Atkins argued it only extended to the highway easement’s edge (i.e., to the edge of the unpaved shoulder).
- The trial court found the deed ambiguous, credited defendant’s survey evidence, and ruled for the defendant. Plaintiffs appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Boundary’s exact location | "State highway" in deed should mean paved portion | It means full highway easement/shoulder | Deed is ambiguous; extrinsic evidence shows boundary is edge of unpaved shoulder |
| Nature of interest in lakefront premises | Exclusive use is akin to fee simple, so presumption of ownership to road center applies | Plaintiffs' interest is an easement, not fee simple | Restrictive language shows it’s an easement, so presumption doesn’t apply |
| Whether trial court’s factual findings were clear error | Court misread map, iron pin only marks easement, not boundary | Map & pins show boundary stops at easement’s edge | Substantial evidence supported trial court’s findings; not clearly erroneous |
| Ambiguity construction principle | Any ambiguity should be construed against grantor | Rule applies only if ambiguity remains post-evidence | Rule is one of last resort; ambiguity was resolved by evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Lake Garda Improvement Ass’n v. Battistoni, 160 Conn. 503 (ambiguity in a deed resolved with reference to incorporated maps and extrinsic evidence)
- Stefanoni v. Duncan, 282 Conn. 686 (distinguishing easement from fee simple; effect of deed language)
- Il Giardino, LLC v. Belle Haven Land Co., 254 Conn. 502 (similar deed language conveys easement, not fee)
- Mackin v. Mackin, 186 Conn. 185 (ambiguity in land grant construed in favor of grantee only as a last resort)
- Williams v. Green Power Ventures, LLC, 221 Conn. App. 657 (map incorporated into a deed is part of the deed for interpretation purposes)
- Mackie v. Hull, 69 Conn. App. 538 (review standards for boundary construction in deeds)