128 Conn. App. 497
Conn. App. Ct.2011Background
- Neighbors dispute over use of plaintiff's driveway and adjacent turnaround area for defendant’s ingress/egress and turning; trial court found prescriptive easement for the driveway width but not for the turnaround area.
- Defendants claimed a prescriptive right to use the turnaround area for vehicle turning, based on more than fifteen years of use.
- Plaintiff sought declaratory judgment to exclude defendants from the turnaround area; defendants counterclaimed for a right-of-way/easement under § 47-37.
- Trial court concluded there was no credible evidence establishing the boundary or manner of use of the turnaround area; judgment denied prescriptive easement for the turnaround.
- Appellate court reviews findings of fact for clear error and defers to the trial court's factual conclusions; no prescriptive right for the turnaround was established.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a prescriptive easement to turn around exists. | St. Germain contends no boundary or use was proven. | Hurd argues boundary proven with reasonable certainty. | No prescriptive easement established for turnaround area. |
| What standard governs the appellate review of trial court findings on prescription? | Review is clearly erroneous if no support in record. | Questions of law; standard should be plenary. | Review is clearly erroneous only; defer to trial court findings. |
| Whether the boundary of the claimed turnaround area was established with reasonable certainty. | Boundary not credibly shown by the record. | Boundary described by record and photos. | Not established with reasonable certainty; no prescriptive easement. |
| Whether remand is appropriate to define the scope if prescription existed. | Remand may be necessary to fix scope. | No remand needed since prescription not proven. | Remand not required; no easement found. |
Key Cases Cited
- Slack v. Greene, 294 Conn. 418 (2009) (clear-error standard; prescription elements require open, continuous use)
- McCullough v. Waterfront Park Assn., Inc., 32 Conn.App. 746 (1993) (preponderance of the evidence; boundaries need not be metes and bounds)
- Kuras v. Kope, 205 Conn. 332 (1987) (prescriptive rights limited to actual use and defined by use)
- Schulz v. Syvertsen, 219 Conn. 81 (1991) (bounds defined by common and ordinary use; definite boundaries not always required)
- Kaiko v. Dolinger, 184 Conn. 509 (1981) (prescriptive rights limited by actual, reasonable boundaries)