Thurlow v. HULTEN
130 Conn. App. 1
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2011Background
- Thurlow et al. filed a nine-count substituted complaint seeking to quiet title to an easement over Hulten et al.'s land.
- The easement, described in a quitclaim deed, runs across the defendants' land for going to and from a lot and for cutting wood, with bars to be erected on the lot.
- Defendants admitted ownership of the parcel but denied the existence of a right-of-way encumbrance, and trial proceeded to decide the easement scope and validity.
- Plaintiffs used the pathway across defendants' land; defendants attempted to block access beginning in 2004, leading to litigation.
- The trial court awarded quiet title and injunction to plaintiffs, holding defendants failed to plead a contrary estate under § 47-31(d), precluding contest over the easement.
- On appeal, the court reversed, determining the pleading requirement under § 47-31(d) was not properly applied and that the easement scope was improperly enlarged to “all lawful purposes”
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 47-31(d) pleading requires the defendant to plead an estate contrary to plaintiff's claimed easement | Thurlow contends defendants failed to plead a contrary estate and thus were barred | Hulten asserted pleadings admitted ownership and denied an unfettered easement, allowing contest of scope | Yes; pleading was insufficient to preclude contest and the ruling was improper |
| Whether the trial court properly limited/expanded the scope of the easement to all lawful purposes | Plaintiffs claim the easement covers all lawful uses per deed terms | Defendants argue the deed restricts activities; scope cannot be broadened beyond the explicit terms | No; court improperly enlarged scope to all lawful purposes |
Key Cases Cited
- Stefanoni v. Duncan, 282 Conn. 686 (2007) (scope of easement is a question of fact; review for clear error)
- Discover Bank v. Mayer, 127 Conn.App. 813 (2011) (statutory interpretation resolve using plain meaning)
- Loewenberg v. Wallace, 147 Conn. 689 (1960) (pleading to contest title; describing the estate and how acquired)
- Lostritto v. Community Action Agency of New Haven, Inc., 269 Conn. 10 (2004) (avoid hyper-technical pleading to reach merits)
- Hartford-Connecticut Trust Co. v. Cambell, 95 Conn. 399 (1920) (pleadings should inform issues without hyper-technicalism)
- Leposky v. Fenton, 100 Conn.App. 774 (2007) (text of easement governs scope; context may aid interpretation)
- Peterson v. Oxford, 189 Conn. 740 (1983) (reasonableness of use in easements; factors include harm, foreseeability)