Harbour Pointe, LLC v. Harbour Landing Condominium Ass'n
14 A.3d 284
| Conn. | 2011Background
- Harbour Pointe owns phases III–V; Harbour Landing was declarant for Harbour Landing, an expandable condominium.
- Article IIIa created ingress/egress and utility easements over phase I for phases II–V, to continue until those phases were added to the condo.
- Expansion right expired July 19, 1990; phases III–V were never added to Harbour Landing.
- Easements at issue allegedly allow Harbour Pointe access and utilities across Harbour Landing’s property.
- Trial court held easements clear and perpetual unless expansion occurred; enjoined association from interference and quieted title in Harbour Pointe.
- Dissent argues the declaration, history, and statute support termination of easements with expiration of expansion rights and/or no perpetual easements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the easements terminate if expansion never occurs | Harbour Pointe—easements continue unless all phases added | Association—easements terminate when expansion rights expire or upon non-addition | Easements terminate only if all phases are added; they remain as expansion rights expired. |
| Is the declaration ambiguous due to conflicting provisions (IIIa vs V) | Language unambiguous; easements persist | Language ambiguous given multiple phrases | Declaration clearly grants access/utility easements terminating only if all phases are added. |
| Does the Act history/notice requirement support a restrictive interpretation against declarant | Act intended consumer protection; interpretation should favor buyers | Declaration should be interpreted per contract principles | Act history and contract context support reader-friendly interpretation; declarant bears ambiguity. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cantonbury Heights Condominium Assn., Inc. v. Local Land Development, LLC, 273 Conn. 724 (2005) (contract principles apply to declaration interpretation; consider context)
- Crews v. Crews, 295 Conn. 153 (2010) (statutory/contract interpretation with plenary review on questions of law)
- Ziotas v. Reardon Law Firm, P. C., 296 Conn. 579 (2010) (statutory interpretation; interpret in light of legislative history)
- Afkari-Ahmadi v. Fotovat-Ahmadi, 294 Conn. 384 (2009) (remedial statutes liberal construction in favor of intended beneficiaries)