Sanle Zhang v. 56 Locust Rd., LLC
172 A.3d 317
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Plaintiffs Sanle Zhang and Yanpin Li filed to quiet title to a disputed parcel, asserting title by adverse possession.
- Defendant 56 Locust Road, LLC filed a counterclaim and sought to retain rights to the disputed area.
- The trial court found for the plaintiffs on adverse possession and, on the defendant's counterclaim, granted the defendant a ten-foot easement by necessity over the easterly portion of the disputed area.
- Defendant appealed contesting the adverse possession finding, asserting equitable defenses, challenging the constitutionality of statutes cited by the court, and arguing the easement might be ineffective if municipal approvals are not obtained.
- Plaintiffs cross-appealed the grant of the easement by necessity.
- The Appellate Court affirmed, concluding the trial court properly addressed the facts and law; the claim about municipal approvals was held premature (not ripe).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of adverse possession claim | Plaintiffs asserted they acquired title by adverse possession | Defendant argued predecessors never conveyed interest, so adverse possession cannot stand | Affirmed trial court: adverse possession finding upheld |
| Equitable defenses raised by defendant | Plaintiffs implicitly argued equities favor quiet title | Defendant argued trial court failed to balance equities and should have accepted equitable defenses | Appellate court rejected defendant's contention; trial court adequately addressed equities |
| Constitutionality of statutes (§§ 47-37 and 52-575) | Plaintiffs did not concede unconstitutionality; defended statutes' application | Defendant argued statutes permit taking without just compensation (unconstitutional) | Claim rejected; court affirmed without reaching new constitutional ruling |
| Validity/utility of easement by necessity | Plaintiffs argued easement was improper and cross-appealed its grant | Defendant argued easement may be ineffective if municipal approvals block access, but needs protection to avoid landlock | Easement by necessity upheld; concern about municipal approvals deemed premature (unripe) for review |
Key Cases Cited
- Lost Trail, LLC v. Weston, 140 Conn. App. 136 (Conn. App. 2013) (ripeness: claims contingent on hypothetical future events are not ripe)
- Astoria Fed. Mtge. Corp. v. Matschke, 111 Conn. App. 462 (Conn. App. 2008) (ripeness prevents adjudication of hypothetical injuries)