McBurney v. Paquin, 28 A.3d 272

1885 Baker plan filed for Branford beachfront development, with lawn between waterfront lots and sound; conveyances referenced the plan creating an implied easement over the lawn for rear lot owners.
The implied easement's existence was previously established by this Court (McBurney v. Cirillo) and remanded to determine its scope; notice was given to all lot owners to join.
Trial court on remand held the easement to be only a right-of-way to access the shoreline, not a right to recreate on the lawn.
The court later issued supplemental orders expanding the easement to allow pass/repaste to areas east of the avenue; Beachcroft challenged this broader scope.
Cross-appeals centered on whether Fisk v. Ley should control the scope and on the permissibility of the supplemental broadening; the court found Fisk not controlling for scope and invalidated the eastward expansion in the supplemental orders.
Key evidentiary principles included consideration of maps, deeds, photographs, and contemporaneous Fisk findings to infer Baker's intent and the easement's reasonable scope.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Scope of the implied easement	Plaintiffs contend easement is only a right-of-way	Defendants contend easement permits recreation on the lawn	Easement scope limited to right-of-way to shoreline
Weight of Fisk v. Ley as evidence	Fisk should be controlling pre-1903 use	Fisk is not determinative of scope	Fisk not controlling; not binding on scope assessment
Motion in limine restricting evidence	Limitation to 1885–early 1900s should be reversed	Limitation appropriate to reflect creation period	Partial granting of the motion in limine proper; restricts evidence to around 1885–early 1900s
Supplemental orders broadening scope to areas east of Avenue	Orders were consistent with broader use of lawn	No evidentiary support for broadened scope	Supplemental orders extending use beyond shoreline are reversed
evidentiary reliance on deeds vs. other sources	Deeds support broad recreation use	Deeds indicate limited right-of-way	Deeds were most compelling evidence; broader inferences not supported

McBurney v. Cirillo, 276 Conn. 782 (2006) (implied easement exists; remand to scope with notice to owners)
Fisk v. Ley, 76 Conn. 295 (1903) (best contemporaneous evidence; injunction context not determinative of scope)
Mandes v. Godiksen, 57 Conn.App. 79 (2000) (an easement created by implication uses surrounding circumstances to determine scope)
Double I Ltd. Partnership v. Plan & Zoning Comm., 218 Conn. 65 (1991) (right-of-way interpretation; general meaning of easement terms)