328 Conn. 615
Conn.2018Background
- Brockway Ferry Road in Lyme runs toward the Connecticut River; its western terminus is unimproved, intermittently submerged, and disputed.
- Adjoining proprietors filed a petition under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 13a-39 to have the town selectmen (the board) define the road’s lost or uncertain western bounds; the board issued a decision and map (2006 map) locating the road through plaintiff Marchesi’s property.
- Marchesi appealed under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 13a-40; this Court held § 13a-40 appeals are trials de novo and remanded to determine both length and width of the existing highway.
- On remand the trial court held a three-day bench trial, admitted historical maps, surveys, and expert testimony from two surveyors/historians, and confirmed the board’s finding that the road’s width varied roughly 21–27 feet.
- Marchesi challenged jurisdiction (arguing a prior judicial determination of public status/abandonment was required and alleging defects in the § 13a-39 petition) and contended the width finding was clearly erroneous; the Supreme Court rejected these claims and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a prior judicial determination that the disputed area is a public highway (or not abandoned) is a jurisdictional condition precedent to a § 13a-39 proceeding | Marchesi: A court must first decide legal status (e.g., abandonment) before selectmen can define bounds | Defendants: § 13a-39 does not require prior judicial determination; selectmen may determine bounds and preliminarily address jurisdictional questions | Held: No. A judicial finding of public status/abandonment is not a jurisdictional prerequisite to a § 13a-39 proceeding; selectmen (and courts) may address jurisdiction preliminarily and courts may later adjudicate status if needed. |
| Whether procedural defects in the § 13a-39 process (use of a preexisting map; petition not signed by all adjoining proprietors) rendered the board’s action a nullity and divested the Superior Court of jurisdiction on appeal under § 13a-40 | Marchesi: Multiple procedural errors (map prepared before petition; lack of signatures) deprived the board of jurisdiction per Hartford Trust Co. | Defendants: § 13a-39 contains notice protections; the petition and maps here provided adequate notice and any procedural errors were cured by the de novo § 13a-40 trial | Held: The cited defects were not jurisdictional. § 13a-39 requires written application by any adjoining proprietor and notice to known adjoining proprietors; requiring all adjoining proprietors’ signatures would frustrate the statute. Procedural errors that do not implicate notice are cured by the de novo trial. |
| Whether the board exceeded its authority under § 13a-39 by effectively determining the road’s existence/status when defining bounds | Marchesi: By defining lines across her land the board implicitly determined the road existed and had not been abandoned—issues beyond § 13a-39 authority | Defendants: Hamann permits that boards cannot determine legal status as a primary function, but status issues can arise and be handled preliminarily; ultimate status questions can be litigated separately | Held: Hamann does not make a judicial status determination a jurisdictional precondition. Boards may refuse to proceed if they conclude an area is not a highway; parties may bring declaratory/quiet title actions if needed. |
| Whether the trial court’s width finding (approx. 21–27 ft) was clearly erroneous given sparse physical/documentary evidence | Marchesi: No reliable physical or historical evidence of width; experts conflicted and any width finding is speculative | Defendants: Expert testimony and historical materials supported a typical historic width near 1.5–2 rods (≈24–33 ft); trial court credited experts | Held: Not clearly erroneous. Trial court reasonably credited expert historical/survey testimony (particularly Stefon) and its factual finding was supported despite lack of direct monuments. |
Key Cases Cited
- Marchesi v. Board of Selectmen, 309 Conn. 608 (Conn. 2013) (held § 13a-40 appeals are trials de novo and remanded to determine length and width of highway)
- Hamann v. Newtown, 14 Conn. App. 521 (Conn. App. 1988) (§ 13a-39 authorizes defining bounds of an existing road; a board may not be used to determine legal status as its primary function)
- Hartford Trust Co. v. West Hartford, 84 Conn. 646 (Conn. 1911) (strict compliance with predecessor statute required where defects denied notice/opportunity to be heard; lack of notice rendered proceeding void)
- Appeal of St. John's Church, 83 Conn. 101 (Conn. 1910) (procedural errors before selectmen do not defeat Superior Court’s jurisdiction on de novo appeal under predecessor statute)
- Montanaro v. Aspetuck Land Trust, Inc., 137 Conn. App. 1 (Conn. App. 2012) (plaintiffs need not exhaust § 13a-39 before seeking judicial determination of a highway’s legal status)