144 Conn. App. 658
Conn. App. Ct.2013Background
- This is a consolidated quiet title action involving four adjacent lots (11–14) in East Lyme, each originally conveyed from Grace Barnard Smith in 1919 with a map reference and an express condition that the map lines were agreed upon by grantees.
- Each lot has its own chain of title: Petrillo lot (11), Acton lot (12), Rocamora lot (13), and Heaney lot (14), with disputed boundaries affecting triangular slivers along the borders.
- The parties submitted competing boundary maps from experts Meehan and Pfanner, with Meehan placing Rocamora/Acton and Rocamora/Heaney boundaries differently from Pfanner, affecting ownership shares.
- A 1920 map (Daboll & Crandall) and a 2007 Pearson survey were admitted as evidence; Pfanner and Meehan testified about the methods and credibility of their mappings against the 1919 map.
- The court credited Pfanner’s metes-and-bounds/monuments-based methodology over Meehan’s map-centric approach, concluding Pfanner’s boundaries controlled title.
- The judgment thus quieted title in favor of the Heaney and Acton respondents, with Rocamora appealing on multiple evidentiary and interpretive grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Deed interpretation against map condition | Rocamora contends map-control clauses fix boundaries. | Pfanner method aligns with monuments and metes-and-bounds; intent unclear but Pfanner credible. | Court adopted Pfanner; boundaries as in Pfanner map. |
| Preference among conflicting descriptions | Discrepancies imply scriveners’ errors; deed terms should prevail over map. | Monuments prevail over courses/distances; map and monuments determine intent. | Monuments and deed descriptions resolved by extrinsic evidence; Pfanner credible. |
| Use of unrecorded maps not in chain of title | Pfanner and other unrecorded maps should not determine title. | Unrecorded maps used as evidentiary sources; not notice devices, but support for credibility. | Unrecorded maps admissible as evidence; not reversible error given corroborating evidence. |
| Admissibility of the 1920 map | 1920 map is irrelevant hearsay outside the chain of title. | Court has broad discretion to admit relevant evidence; map supports Pfanner. | Admission not reversible error; even if error, no harmful effect shown. |
| Scaling of the 1919 map | Meehan testified it could be scaled; map should be scalable. | Other testimony shows scaling would be unreliable or inaccurate. | No clear error; credible evidence supports non-scaling finding. |
Key Cases Cited
- Simone v. Miller, 91 Conn. App. 98 (Conn. App. 2005) (deed map references credited as part of the deed; extrinsic evidence allowed)
- Har v. Boreiko, 118 Conn. App. 787 (Conn. App. 2010) (credibility/weight of expert testimony for factual determinations)
- In re Galen F., 54 Conn. App. 590 (Conn. App. 1999) (harmful error standard for evidentiary rulings)
- Powers v. Olson, 252 Conn. 98 (Conn. 2000) (unrecorded maps and notice concepts in title transfer context)
- Kulmacz v. Milas, 108 Conn. 538 (Conn. 1928) (early precedence on chain of title and boundaries)
- Marshall v. Soffer, 58 Conn. App. 737 (Conn. App. 2000) (evidence weight and credibility in boundary disputes)
- Lake Garda Improvement Assn. v. Battistoni, 160 Conn. 503 (Conn. 1971) (deed descriptions and map references interpreted in light of surrounding circumstances)
- Velsmid v. Nelson, 175 Conn. 221 (Conn. 1978) (monuments prevail over courses and distances when in conflict)