Rickel v. Komaromi
2013 Conn. App. LEXIS 408
Conn. App. Ct.2013Background
- Plaintiff Caryn Rickel owns property adjacent to defendants Michael and Roberta Komaromi in Seymour, CT; defendants planted invasive running bamboo on their corner lot in 1997 without containment.
- Bamboo encroached onto Rickel’s property; landscaper removed and installed steel sheathing in 2005, but bamboo reappeared by 2010.
- Rickel sued (filed Nov. 5, 2010) alleging nuisance, trespass, and negligence; defendants raised statutes-of-limitations defenses and moved for summary judgment on that basis.
- Defendants’ summary judgment motion relied solely on dates (1997 planting, 2005 discovery/abatement, 2010 filing) and cited only the complaint; they did not address Rickel’s allegations that the bamboo repeatedly encroached (continuing nuisance/trespass).
- Trial court granted summary judgment as time‑barred; appellate court reversed, holding that whether the invasions were continuing or permanent was a genuine issue of material fact that defendants failed to negate on summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trespass and nuisance were continuing or permanent for statute‑of‑limitations accrual | Rickel: encroachments were continuing; each recurrence starts a new limitations period | Komaromi: wrongful act occurred at original planting (1997) / discovery in 2005; claims are time‑barred | Court: existence of continuing vs permanent invasions is a genuine issue of material fact; defendants failed to negate it on summary judgment; reversal required |
| Whether defendants met their summary judgment burden on limitations defense | Rickel: pleadings and opposition raised factual dispute; court must view evidence in her favor | Komaromi: relied on complaint dates to show claims untimely | Court: movant must show no genuine issue; defendants did not address continuing‑wrong allegations and thus failed their heavy burden |
| Whether continuing course of conduct tolling applies after discovery | Rickel: not relying on tolling doctrine to save claim beyond discovery; argues separate continuing‑wrong rule applies to nuisance/trespass | Komaromi: continuing course doctrine could be invoked to toll limitations | Court: continuing‑course tolling inapplicable after discovery (Mollica), but that does not resolve whether each recurrence created fresh causes of action for trespass/nuisance |
| Appropriateness of summary judgment on mixed factual/legal nuisance/trespass questions | Rickel: characterization (temporary/continuing vs permanent) is fact‑intensive and precludes summary judgment | Komaromi: statute application is straightforward to the alleged acts/dates | Court: nuisance/trespass characterizations are fact‑intensive; inappropriate to resolve on statute‑of‑limitations summary judgment here |
Key Cases Cited
- Boone v. William W. Backus Hosp., 272 Conn. 551 (Conn.) (standard of plenary review on summary judgment)
- Ramirez v. Health Net of the Northeast, Inc., 285 Conn. 1 (Conn.) (movant’s strict burden on summary judgment)
- Bristol v. Tilcon Minerals, Inc., 284 Conn. 55 (Conn.) (elements of trespass; temporary vs permanent injury)
- Filisko v. Bridgeport Hydraulic Co., 176 Conn. 33 (Conn.) (temporary vs permanent nuisance; ordinarily a jury question)
- Pestey v. Cushman, 259 Conn. 345 (Conn.) (definition and elements of private nuisance)
- Lucchesi v. Perfetto, 72 A.D.3d 909 (N.Y. App. Div.) (continuous‑wrong doctrine: continuing deposits gave rise to successive causes of action)