207 Conn.App. 361
Conn. App. Ct.2021Background:
- Plaintiffs (Pimentals and Livingstones) own properties on Starr Road in Thompson; a portion of Starr Road beyond a cul-de-sac to the Rhode Island border (the disputed portion) was claimed by defendant River Junction Estates, LLC to be a public highway.
- River Junction sought town permits to improve the disputed portion and asserted the way was a public highway based on historical maps, deeds, and long use; the town’s wetlands commission conditioned approval on a determination that the way is a public highway.
- Plaintiffs brought a quiet title action (and an administrative appeal that was bifurcated); the quiet title trial was tried to the court after which the trial court found for the plaintiffs and the town, holding the disputed portion was not a public highway.
- Trial court findings: historical map and deed references, occasional public/recreational use, and some municipal acts did not demonstrate a manifested intent by fee owner to dedicate the way, nor acceptance by authorities/public; aerial maps and DOT maps showed abandonment/impassible segments.
- River Junction appealed, arguing implied dedication (based on early 1800s use/maps/deeds), acceptance, estoppel by town conduct, and that access necessity made the way public; the appellate court affirmed the trial court.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the disputed portion was impliedly dedicated as a public highway | No—owners did not manifest intent to dedicate; references/maps are insufficient | Yes—historical maps, deed boundaries, and long usage show implied dedication | No—court found no manifested intent; historical references insufficient to compel dedication |
| Whether the public or authorities accepted the disputed portion | No—use was intermittent and permissive, not acceptance | Yes—public use and some municipal acts (permits/maintenance) show acceptance | No—acceptance not established; permissive/occasional use inadequate |
| Whether landlocked status/easement by necessity requires public highway status | Access issues aside; quiet title required to establish public highway first | Access necessity/precedent means way must be public to avoid landlocking | No—easement-by-necessity analysis is distinct; landlocked argument does not establish public dedication |
| Whether town is estopped from denying road status by prior conduct | Town maintained road only to the recorded town-maintained end; plaintiffs rely on title/no town interest | Town’s prior acts (deed acceptance, permits) estop denial | Not reached as dispositive; even if estoppel succeeded, River Junction still bore burden to prove public highway against plaintiffs |
Key Cases Cited
- Montanaro v. Aspetuck Land Trust, Inc., 137 Conn. App. 1 (Conn. App. 2012) (describing four methods highways are established, including private dedication)
- Mihalczo v. Woodmont, 175 Conn. 535 (Conn. 1978) (permissive use alone does not establish dedication)
- A & H Corp. v. Bridgeport, 180 Conn. 435 (Conn. 1980) (no presumption of dedication unless owner’s acts unequivocally manifest intent)
- Kent v. Pratt, 73 Conn. 573 (Conn. 1901) (explaining implied dedication doctrine and acts-based inquiry)
- Whippoorwill Crest Co. v. Stratford, 145 Conn. 268 (Conn. 1958) (implied dedication rests on equitable estoppel principles)
- LaChappelle v. Jewett City, 121 Conn. 381 (Conn. 1936) (deference to trial court where facts do not compel dedication)
- Francini v. Goodspeed Airport, LLC, 327 Conn. 431 (Conn. 2018) (distinguishing easement-by-necessity analysis from dedication/acceptance)