209 Conn.App. 337
Conn. App. Ct.2021Background
- Lebanon Historical Society (the plaintiff), a nonprofit preserving the town green, sought to quiet title and impose conservation/preservation restrictions on three portions of the Lebanon Town Green, including the parcel hosting the First Congregational Church (Church Parcel).
- The town had earlier pursued and obtained quiet-title judgments for other Green parcels (Library Parcel, Town Hall Parcel, Northern Parcel), and the plaintiff obtained conservation/preservation restrictions on those parcels that it now holds.
- The plaintiff did not hold any conservation or preservation restriction on the Church Parcel and instead sought to create such restrictions there by bringing its quiet title action under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 47-31(a).
- The church moved to dismiss the plaintiff’s claim as to the Church Parcel for lack of standing; the trial court granted the motion, concluding the plaintiff lacked an "actual interest" in that parcel as required by § 47-31(a).
- The town later filed its own counterclaim in the church’s quiet-title action seeking restrictions on the Church Parcel, and the church agreed to those restrictions; the trial court stayed that action pending resolution of this appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing under §47-31(a) to bring a quiet-title action for the Church Parcel | Plaintiff: §47-31(a) permits any person with "any interest"; its preservation mission and proposed restrictions show an interest. | Church: Plaintiff has no title or present interest in the Church Parcel; no standing. | Held: Plaintiff lacks standing—§47-31(a) requires an actual present interest (title, present use right, or present restrictive interest), which plaintiff does not have. |
| Whether holding restrictions on other parts of the Green gives standing to challenge the Church Parcel | Plaintiff: Holds restrictions on ~95% of the Green; Green is contiguous/indivisible, so that interest extends to the Church Parcel. | Church: Conservation restrictions are interests in land limited to the specific land burdened; they do not extend to adjacent parcels. | Held: Rejected plaintiff’s argument; interest is limited to the land on which the restriction exists—adjacent land is not covered. |
| Whether a generalized public/preservation interest suffices for standing | Plaintiff: Its longstanding role preserving the Green creates a protectable interest. | Church/AG: General public-spirited or mission-based interest is not an ‘‘actual interest’’ under §47-31(a). | Held: Generalized interest in preserving public character is insufficient for standing; statute requires an actual interest. |
| Whether lack of plaintiff standing would leave the parcel unprotected or conflict with prior town stipulations | Plaintiff: If plaintiff cannot proceed, no one can secure restrictions; prior stipulations with town suggest plaintiff should have standing. | Defendants: Town has standing and has already sought and obtained agreed restrictions; prior stipulations do not confer plaintiff with standing. | Held: Unpersuasive—town can protect the parcel; prior stipulations do not establish plaintiff’s standing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Loewenberg v. Wallace, 147 Conn. 689 (Conn. 1960) (quiet-title plaintiff must allege an actual interest in the property to have standing)
- Brill v. Ulrey, 159 Conn. 371 (Conn. 1970) (statutory standing under § 47-31 requires an actual interest)
- Heinonen v. Gupton, 173 Conn. App. 54 (Conn. App. 2017) (motion to dismiss properly tests standing; review standard summarized)
- Cincinnati v. White's Lessee, 31 U.S. (6 Pet.) 431 (U.S. 1832) (public dedication/duty of municipal interest in land informally dedicated to public use)
- Thames Talent, Ltd. v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities, 265 Conn. 127 (Conn. 2003) (statutory interpretation should avoid absurd results)