130 Conn. App. 306
Conn. App. Ct.2011Background
- Plaintiff Mierzejewski seeks to quiet title to a strip along his northerly boundary with Laneri on Bashan Road in East Haddam.
- Defendants Laneri claim their southerly boundary is the stone wall; plaintiff contends it is the center line of the old abandoned highway.
- The boundary dispute hinges on the interpretation of the 1922 deed from Sauer’s administratrix to Robinson, describing the southerly boundary as by 'an old highway'.
- Historically, the highway along the boundary was abandoned in 1866 and the center-line presumption generally attaches to abutting landowners.
- Defendants’ chain of title traces back through records describing the easterly boundary as 'Easterly by the highway' (now Bashan Road).
- The trial court concluded the southerly boundary of the homestead parcel was a stone wall; the appellate court reviews the deed language de novo.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| What bounds the defendants’ southerly boundary? | Laneri boundary is the center line of the old highway. | Boundary is the stone wall on the southerly edge. | Center line of the old highway governs. |
| Does the 1922 Sauer deed incorporate the center-line presumption? | 1922 deed 'same and all the same premises' imports center-line ownership. | Unity of title does not alter the boundary description in the deed. | Yes; the 1922 deed conveys to the center line. |
| Is Marketable Title Act a valid alternate ground on appeal? | Act precludes examining older chains of title. | Act raised for first time on appeal should be considered. | Not considered; raise on appeal improper; original boundary rule stands. |
Key Cases Cited
- Luf v. Southbury, 188 Conn. 336 (Conn. 1982) (common-law presumption to center of highway after abandonment)
- Antenucci v. Hartford Roman Catholic Diocesan Corp., 142 Conn. 349 (Conn. 1955) (abutting owner owns to center of highway)
- Koennicke v. Maiorano, 43 Conn. App. 1 (Conn. App. 1996) (deed language controls boundary when clear)
- McCullough v. Waterfront Park Assn., Inc., 32 Conn. App. 746 (Conn. App. 1993) (de novo review for clear deed language)
- Dent v. Lovejoy, 85 Conn. App. 455 (Conn. App. 2004) (interpretation of deeds by reading entire context)
- Har v. Boreiko, 118 Conn. App. 787 (Conn. App. 2010) (deed construction focuses on expressed intent)
- Gager v. Carlson, 146 Conn. 288 (Conn. 1924) (establishes statutory pleading standards for title actions)
- Gaul v. Baker, 105 Conn. 80 (Conn. 1927) (statutory framework for quiet title actions)
- Foote v. Brown, 78 Conn. 369 (Conn. 1905) (elements of complaint in title settlement actions)