230 Conn.App. 483
Conn. App. Ct.2025Background:
- Plaintiffs (Pascual and Francisco) and Defendant (Perry) own adjoining properties in Torrington, Connecticut.
- The defendant purchased her property in 2015 from Pipa, who had owned it since 1985; plaintiffs purchased their property later in 2015 following foreclosure against the prior owner.
- A boundary dispute arose in 2020 following plaintiffs' efforts to install fencing, revealing a 925 square foot area within plaintiffs’ deeded property, but long maintained by defendant and predecessor.
- Defendant admitted the area was in plaintiffs' deed but counterclaimed she had acquired title by adverse possession, tacking Pipa’s prior possession.
- Trial court found for Perry on adverse possession: her and Pipa’s open, exclusive, and continuous use for over 35 years satisfied all elements, including tacking; plaintiffs appealed.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Open & Visible Use | Use by defendant and Pipa was not sufficiently open or intrusive | Sufficient open, visible maintenance (mowing, gardening, landscaping, etc) | Not clearly erroneous: evidence supported open, visible use |
| Hostility | Pipa’s use was with permission/acquiescence; thus, not hostile | No permission shown; exclusive, adverse use for statutory period | Not clearly erroneous: evidence showed hostility |
| Tacking of Predecessor’s Possession | No evidence Pipa intended to convey adverse claim to Perry | Implied intent to convey via conduct and nature of transfer | Sufficient facts for implied tacking; privity found |
| Foreclosure Interrupts Adverse Poss. | Judgment of foreclosure against predecessor interrupted adverse possession | Issue not preserved or adequately briefed by plaintiffs | Not reviewed: inadequately briefed, not preserved |
Key Cases Cited
- O’Connor v. Larocque, 302 Conn. 562 (Conn. 2011) (sets out elements of adverse possession, including open, visible, exclusive, and hostile use)
- Supronowicz v. Eaton, 224 Conn. App. 66 (Conn. App. Ct. 2022) (tacking periods of adverse possession, privity by implied transfer)
- Mulle v. McCauley, 102 Conn. App. 803 (Conn. App. Ct. 2007) (clear and convincing evidence standard for adverse possession)
- Schlichting v. Cotter, 109 Conn. App. 361 (Conn. App. Ct. 2008) (analysis of open and visible element in adverse possession)
- Brander v. Stoddard, 173 Conn. App. 730 (Conn. App. Ct. 2017) (hostility and claim of right distinguished from permission)