228 Conn.App. 537
Conn. App. Ct.2024Background
- The dispute centers on a parcel of land in Ledyard, Connecticut, originally held by Florence Stimpson, then transferred through family members (siblings Lucille Watson and David Watson) by will or intestate succession.
- Plaintiff Reinald E. Thoma, as trustee, claimed adverse possession over a "back parcel" for over fifteen years.
- Plaintiff and his predecessors used and improved the back parcel (installed well, fence, septic, etc.), viewing it as their own and paying taxes/insurance.
- Defendant David Watson, Lucille’s sibling and co-heir, denied the use was hostile or adverse.
- Trial court denied plaintiff’s adverse possession claim, finding that because of cotenancy/familial relationship, use was presumptively permissive and not proved otherwise.
- Plaintiff appealed, challenging the trial court’s handling of permissive use, its legal standard, factual findings, and failure to determine precise property rights.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Must permissive use be pled as a special defense? | Watson was required to plead permissive use by special defense. | Practice Book rules don't require specially pleading permissive use. | Defendant need not specially plead; general denial sufficient here. |
| Was it improper for the court to raise permissive use sua sponte posttrial? | Trial by ambush; no notice; should have been pleaded. | Plaintiff had burden due to pleadings/familial context. | Court's posttrial inquiry was a proper exercise of discretion. |
| Did the trial court apply an incorrect legal standard regarding intent and motive? | No need to prove intent to dispossess; standard misapplied. | Cotenancy/family context requires clear intent to disseize. | Court applied correct "clear and unmistakable" intent standard. |
| Did plaintiff fail to establish adverse possession by clear and convincing evidence? | Plaintiff met burden; court erred in weighing evidence. | Plaintiff failed to rebut permissive use presumption. | Plaintiff failed to meet burden; court's finding not clearly wrong. |
| Did court fail to comply with quiet title statute by not specifying interests? | Should have determined/resolved interests of the parties precisely. | Court only needed to adjudicate presented disputes. | Court met statutory obligation by leaving title as is. |
Key Cases Cited
- O’Connor v. Larocque, 302 Conn. 562 (Conn. 2011) (establishes heightened burden in adverse possession between cotenants and presumption of permissive use)
- Slack v. Greene, 294 Conn. 418 (Conn. 2009) (clarifies burden of proof and pleading rules regarding permission in adverse use claims)
- Marquis v. Drost, 155 Conn. 327 (Conn. 1967) (delineates scope of court's duty to determine rights in quiet title actions)
- McBurney v. Cirillo, 276 Conn. 782 (Conn. 2006) (applies doctrine of tacking for adverse possession)
- White v. Latimer Point Condominium Ass'n, Inc., 191 Conn. App. 767 (Conn. App. Ct. 2019) (presumption of correctness in trial court findings; burden on appellant)