152 Conn.App. 445
Conn. App. Ct.2014Background
- NPC Offices LLC and Kowaleski defendants own adjacent properties on 192 and 184–188 South Main Sts., Middletown, separated by a shared driveway.
- 1960 agreement created an express easement for the Second Parties (plaintiff) to use the driveway, terminable if 192 Main Street is used for nonresidential/offices.
- The easement runs to the plaintiff’s property and was the sole instrument governing driveway rights.
- In 1990 the defendants acquired their property; plaintiff acquired in 2008; disputes over driveway access increased after a 2008 fence erected by defendants restricted access.
- The trial court found the easement terminated when 192 South Main Street was used for nonprofessional businesses (mortgage brokerage, home health care, appliance-delivery coordination).
- Defendants appealed counterclaims of trespass and nuisance; plaintiffs cross-appealed on related issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff’s use for nonresidential purposes terminated the easement | NPC argues termination occurred due to nonprofessional uses. | Kowaleskis argue termination was improper or not permanent. | Easement terminated automatically by nonresidential use. |
| Whether termination was permanent or suspended | Termination should be permanent per language. | Termination was triggered and persisted. | Termination automatic and not suspended. |
| Whether plaintiff’s breach was material to termination | Breach was technical, not material. | Any breach suffices to terminate. | Breach irrelevant; any nonconforming use terminated the easement. |
| Whether disproportionate forfeiture applies | Doctrine should excuse forfeiture. | Doctrine applies to certain contracts of adhesion and inequity. | Doctrine not applicable to express easement here. |
| Whether defendants’ cross-claims for trespass/nuisance require damages or relief | Damages or relief should follow from breach. | Damages insufficient; declaratory relief only. | Monetary damages not proven; declaratory judgment sustained; no reversal for damages. |
Key Cases Cited
- Eis v. Meyer, 17 Conn. App. 664 (Conn. App. 1989) (easement termination upon occurrence of condition; language controls)
- Leposky v. Fenton, 100 Conn. App. 774 (Conn. App. 2007) (interpretation of easement language; using surrounding circumstances to resolve ambiguities)
- Eis v. Meyer, 17 Conn. App. 670 (Conn. App. 1989) (automatic termination upon condition occurrence (reiteration))
- Arrowood Indemnity Co. v. King, 304 Conn. 179 (Conn. 2012) (doctrine of disproportionate forfeiture; limit context to specific contracts)
- Aetna Cas. & Surety Co. v. Murphy, 206 Conn. 409 (Conn. 1988) (disproportionate forfeiture doctrine, insurance context; factors discussed)
- Twenty-Four Merrill Street Condominium Assn., Inc. v. Murray, 96 Conn. App. 616 (Conn. App. 2006) (disproportionate forfeiture discussed in condominium/foreclosure context)
- Ulbrich v. Groth, 310 Conn. 375 (Conn. 2013) (damages proof burden; nominal damages if none shown)