Savalle v. Hilzinger, 158 Conn.App. 837

Plaintiffs own six acres abutting Perry Road, which is connected to land of defendant, with Perry Road historically used as a public access road.
Lebanon town officials in 1937 closed Perry Road; later minutes show actions labeled as closing/discontinuation, but no 1937 certificate of discontinuance was signed.
1990s–2000s: subsequent town meetings and actions referenced discontinuance or maintenance of Perry Road, with debates about rights of way for adjacent property owners.
April 2008: plaintiffs filed suit for declaratory judgment seeking rights of way under § 13a-55 for a road claimed to be discontinued/abandoned.
July 2009: trial court found Perry Road discontinued circa 1937 and entered judgment for defendant; on appeal, court affirmed that § 13a-55 was inapplicable at the time of discontinuance, as it post-dates the event.
April 1, 2014: plaintiffs petitioned for a new trial under § 52-270 on purported newly discovered evidence (town meeting minutes and expert testimony).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether town records constitute newly discovered evidence under § 52-270	Savalle contends records show different conduct on closing vs discontinuing road.	Hilzinger argues records were available with due diligence and not newly discovered.	No; records were publicly available and due diligence lacking.
Whether expert Stefon's testimony constitutes newly discovered evidence	Stefon provides unique expertise on ancient highways supporting ownership theory.	Stefon was available through ordinary diligence and his testimony not newly discovered.	No; due diligence not satisfied for discovery of this expert testimony.
Whether plaintiffs exercised due diligence in preparation for the original trial	Davis and Mawhinney limited research to Perry Road and did not pursue broader road-discontinuance investigations.	Plaintiffs failed to pursue reasonable search for related discontinuances and experts; due diligence lacking.	No; plaintiffs did not exercise reasonable diligence; petition properly denied.
Whether the court abused its discretion in denying the petition for a new trial	If newly discovered evidence existed, it could yield different trial result.	Due diligence failure defeats entitlement to relief under § 52-270.	No; court did not abuse discretion; findings supported by record.

Black v. Universal C.I.T. Credit Corp., 150 Conn. 188 (Conn. 1962) (equitable standard; due diligence required for new-trial relief)
Kubeck v. Foremost Foods Co., 190 Conn. 667 (Conn. 1983) (due diligence and equitable discretion in § 52-270 petitions)
Terracino v. Fairway Asset Management, Inc., 75 Conn. App. 63 (Conn. App. 2003) (burden on plaintiff to show reasonable diligence; standard for newly discovered evidence)
Dornfried v. October Twenty-Four, Inc., 230 Conn. 622 (Conn. 1994) (clear error standard for findings of fact in § 52-270 context)
Grasso v. Grasso, 153 Conn. App. 252 (Conn. App. 2014) (credibility owed to trial court in factual determinations)