224 Conn.App. 66
Conn. App. Ct.2024Background
- Plaintiffs (Supronowicz) sought to quiet title by adverse possession over a disputed portion of land adjacent to their property, owned by defendants (Eaton and Hawker), in Shelton, Connecticut.
- Plaintiffs and their predecessors had used the disputed area (mainly a side yard and part of a driveway, bounded by a creek and a ravine) continuously since 1961; Supronowicz purchased their property in 2011.
- Plaintiffs received permission from defendants’ predecessor to install drains after purchasing their property; defendants acquired their parcel in 2017 and had a survey done, discovering their record title ownership of the disputed area.
- In 2018-2019, after discovering the encroachment, defendants started to use and fence the disputed area, leading Supronowicz to file this adverse possession suit in 2019.
- Trial court granted summary judgment to defendants, holding insufficient privity existed for tacking, plaintiffs had recognized defendants' superior title, and usage was not exclusive; plaintiffs appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff’s Argument | Defendant’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Privity for Tacking Adverse Possession Periods | Evidence supports implied privity; intent to convey can be inferred from circumstances | No express oral or deed conveyance, thus no privity | Genuine issue of material fact on privity; summary judgment improper |
| Recognition of Superior Title/Permission Request | Plaintiffs only sought permission for water flow into creek, not use of disputed land | Permission sought to use disputed area admits defendants’ title | Genuine issue of material fact; fact-finder to resolve purpose of letter |
| Exclusivity of Plaintiffs’ Use | Plaintiffs and predecessors’ continuous, open, exclusive use till 2018; acts typical of an owner | Defendants' use of area post-2018 defeats exclusivity requirement | Genuine issue of material fact whether use was exclusive before 2018 |
Key Cases Cited
- Dowling v. Heirs of Bond, 345 Conn. 119 (Conn. 2022) (clarifies elements and burden of proof for adverse possession)
- Roche v. Fairfield, 186 Conn. 490 (Conn. 1982) (continuous, exclusive possession, tacking for adverse possession)
- Marquis v. Drost, 155 Conn. 327 (Conn. 1967) (connection between successive adverse claimants for tacking)
- Allen v. Johnson, 79 Conn. App. 740 (Conn. App. Ct. 2003) (acknowledgement of superior title defeats adverse possession)
- Har v. Boreiko, 118 Conn. App. 787 (Conn. App. Ct. 2010) (discusses privity and tacking in adverse possession)