Marchesi v. BOARD OF SELECTMEN OF LYME
131 Conn. App. 24
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2011Background
- Rhonda Marchesi owns property on Brockway Ferry Road in Lyme; board of selectmen defined highway bounds affecting her property after a petition under §13a-39 by neighboring landowners.
- In October 2006 the board issued a memorandum decision concluding Brockway Ferry Road extended through and across Marchesi's property beyond the western terminus.
- Marchesi filed an administrative appeal under §13a-40; the trial court granted summary judgment and held the appeal could proceed as a trial de novo, finding the board exceeded its authority by defining the length of the road.
- The defendants appealed, contending the court was limited to substantial-evidence review; they also argued §13a-40 does not permit de novo review in this context.
- The majority held that §13a-40 permits de novo review and that §13a-39 authorizes defining the line and bounds of a highway, not creating a highway where none exists; the court affirmed summary judgment on the authority issue.
- Lavine, J., dissented, arguing §13a-39 permits determining both width and length of an existing highway and would reverse the judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the appeal could be heard de novo | Marchesi contends de novo review is authorized by §13a-40. | Lyme argues review is limited to substantial evidence. | Trial de novo proper; §13a-40 permits de novo review. |
| Whether board exceeded its authority by defining a highway on plaintiff's land | Board defined length beyond its existing terminus, exceeding §13a-39. | Board properly defined the highway line and bounds. | Board acted beyond authority by determining length; only bounds/line may be defined. |
| Whether there were genuine issues of material fact precluding summary judgment | None; court should grant plaintiff judgment as a matter of law. | Disputed facts on board's authority could preclude summary judgment. | No genuine issues; proper to grant summary judgment on authority grounds. |
| Whether the trial court's finding regarding access to the Connecticut River was erroneous | Finding not binding; the issue did not affect the ruling. | Finding was erroneous and unsupported by evidence. | Finding of access did not affect the decision; no reversible error on this claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hamann v. Newtown, 14 Conn.App. 521 (1988) (limits of §13a-39; defines boundaries of highway, not its legal status)
- Appeal of St. John's Church, 83 Conn. 101 (1909) (boundaries and lines; purpose to define bounds of highways when lost)
- Hartford Trust Co. v. West Hartford, 84 Conn. 646 (1911) (early interpretation of highway bounds and public access)
- Hartford/Windsor Healthcare Properties, LLC v. Hartford, 298 Conn. 191 (2010) (statutory interpretation and review standards in land-use cases)
- Saunders v. Firtel, 293 Conn. 515 (2009) (precedent on plenary review of statutory interpretation and summary judgment)
- SS-II, LLC v. Bridge Street Associates, 293 Conn. 287 (2009) (summary judgment standards and statutory interpretation context)
- U.S. Vision, Inc. v. Board of Examiners for Opticians, 15 Conn. App. 205 (1988) (statutory interpretation and administrative review principles)