Kaplan v. Scheer
182 Conn. App. 488
Conn. App. Ct.2018Background
- Kaplan owned 6 Spring Rock Road; defendants Scheer owned adjacent waterfront 2 Spring Rock Road. A driveway crossed defendants’ land.
- Parties settled Kaplan’s adverse possession/boundary suit in 2003 via a written settlement agreement: they exchanged quitclaim deeds and defendants granted Kaplan a pedestrian/vehicular driveway easement over the portion of defendants’ land used to access her house.
- Settlement and the three instruments (defendants’ easement; defendants’ quitclaim to Kaplan; Kaplan’s quitclaim to defendants) were recorded the same morning; the easement then defendants’ deed, then Kaplan’s deed. Kaplan’s deed quitclaimed “any and all” rights in defendants’ property except the recorded driveway easement.
- Kaplan later was barred by defendants from crossing their property to access the shore via stairs/grove; she sued in 2012 seeking reformation of her deed to reserve the water-access easement, alleging mutual mistake (and alternative unilateral mistake/fraud theories).
- Trial court found for defendants: it concluded the settlement language was unambiguous (alphanumeric prefixes were for convenience) and Kaplan failed to prove mutual mistake by clear and convincing evidence. Kaplan appealed; the Appellate Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Kaplan’s Argument | Scheer’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether alphanumeric prefixes in settlement required a specific recording order | Prefixes (A, B, C) indicate sequence of recording; wrong order caused inadvertent conveyance of water easement | Agreement is silent as to recording order; prefixes are mere convenience and do not change parties’ intent | Court: Agreement unambiguous; prefixes for convenience; no required recording sequence; intent satisfied by instruments as written |
| Whether deed reformation is available to correct alleged mutual mistake about recording/order | Deed should be reformed to reserve water easement because mutual mistake caused unintended conveyance | Reformation would alter the bargained-for settlement; no mutual mistake shown | Court: Reformation denied — Kaplan failed to prove mutual mistake by clear and convincing evidence |
| Burden/standard for proving mutual mistake for reformation | Lower burden should apply given circumstances | Clear and convincing standard applies to reformation claims | Court: Clear and convincing proof required and not met; trial court credibility findings upheld |
| Whether recording sequence (or deed language) resurrects preserved rights | Kaplan: recording order caused extinguishment of water right unintentionally | Scheer: instruments and settlement manifest intent to relinquish all rights except driveway easement; recording sequence would not revive rights | Court: Instruments and settlement language show only driveway easement was preserved; water easement was not protected; recording order not dispositive |
Key Cases Cited
- Reid v. Landsberger, 123 Conn. App. 260 (contract interpretation principle regarding plenary review for unambiguous agreements)
- EH Investment Co., LLC v. Chappo, LLC, 174 Conn. App. 344 (ambiguity must arise from contract language; give effect to all provisions)
- Lopinto v. Haines, 185 Conn. 527 (reformation remedy limited to correcting writings that fail to reflect the parties’ actual agreement)
- Deutsche Bank Nat. Trust Co. v. Perez, 146 Conn. App. 833 (reformation requires that the reformed writing express what both parties understood and agreed to)
- Miller v. Commissioner of Correction, 242 Conn. 745 (explaining the demanding clear-and-convincing standard)
- Yellow Book Sales & Distribution Co. v. Valle, 311 Conn. 112 (must honor plain meaning of integrated written contract)
- Czeczotka v. Roode, 130 Conn. App. 90 (elements and equitable basis for reformation)
- Customers Bank v. Boxer, 148 Conn. App. 479 (trial court’s province to weigh credibility and evidence)