206 Conn.App. 712
Conn. App. Ct.2021Background
- Neighboring owners Collins (lot 23.04) and Quintiliano (lot 23.03) were subject to a common driveway agreement (CDA) that granted a 30-foot-wide, 1000-foot-perhaps-limited deeded easement for ingress and egress to Quintiliano’s lot.
- In June 2016 Collins planted ~43–44 arborvitae; 18 of those trees were planted along the border of the disputed area and later were uprooted and tossed roadside by Quintiliano on June 25, 2017.
- Quintiliano claimed deeded (and potentially prescriptive) easement rights to use the right-of-way; his wife testified two attorneys advised they could drive over or remove obstructing trees to access storage on Quintiliano’s lot.
- Police told Quintiliano any boundary or easement dispute should be resolved in civil court; he nevertheless removed the trees with an excavator and was charged with criminal mischief in the first degree (damage > $1,500 and no reasonable ground to believe one had the right to do so).
- The trial court convicted, finding the trees lay beyond the deeded easement and that no reasonable person in Quintiliano’s position would believe he had the right to uproot them; the court also found it not credible that an attorney would advise removal rather than civil litigation.
- The Appellate Court reversed: it held the record failed to establish where the deeded easement ended or where the trees sat relative to it, and that Connecticut law permits a dominant estate holder to remove material obstructions to a right-of-way without first obtaining judicial relief; judgment of acquittal was directed.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Quintiliano's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence proved defendant had no reasonable ground to believe he had a right to remove the trees | Trees were planted "beyond" the deeded easement; defendant was told to pursue civil relief; an attorney would not advise uprooting | Deeded easement (and possibly prescriptive rights) entitled him to remove obstructions; attorneys advised he could do so; record did not locate trees relative to easement | Reversed: evidence insufficient to prove no reasonable ground; acquittal directed |
| Whether the trial record established the location of the easement and the trees | Trial court found trees outside easement based on testimony and maps | Maps and testimony were imprecise; no expert located easement terminus or trees | Held finding trees were beyond the easement was clearly erroneous—record lacked proof of precise locations |
| Whether a dominant estate holder must first seek judicial relief before clearing an obstruction in a right-of-way | Court below treated advice-to-seek-civil-remedy as proper and found it not credible counsel would advise removal | Easement law permits dominant owner to remove material obstructions (nuisance abatable) so long as no unnecessary damage or breach of the peace | Held as a matter of law dominant owner may remove material obstructions without prior judicial intervention; trial court erred to reject counsel-advice testimony as implausible |
Key Cases Cited
- Blanchard v. Maxson, 84 Conn. 429 (1911) (affirmed dominant owner's right to remove structures that materially obstruct a right-of-way; obstruction is a nuisance abatable)
- Quintard v. Bishop, 29 Conn. 366 (1860) (rejects requirement that dominant owner must sue before clearing an obstruction; clearing for use is justified)
- Greist v. Amrhyn, 80 Conn. 280 (1907) (easement holder may remove obstructions; interference actionable)
- Smith v. Muellner, 283 Conn. 510 (2007) (owner of servient estate retains dominion over land subject to easement but may not interfere with reasonable use)
- Celentano v. Rocque, 282 Conn. 645 (2007) (describes nature and characteristics of easements)
- Thurlow v. Hulten, 173 Conn. App. 694 (2017) (where location testimony conflicts or is imprecise, expert evidence may be required to fix deed/easement boundaries)