Thurlow v. Hulten
164 A.3d 858
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Dispute between adjoining landowners in Canterbury: Thurlow Parties (owners of landlocked Lot 21 and now Lot 30) vs. Hulten Parties (owners of adjoining Lots A and B). Two actions (2005 and 2009) were consolidated for trial on easement and boundary issues.
- Thurlow Parties claimed an easement from Gooseneck Hill Road across Lots A and B to Lot 21 (express, by implication, by necessity, and prescriptive theories); they withdrew express and prescriptive theories at trial.
- Historical deeds dating to 1903 (Bromley to Tillinghast), 1918 (Finn to Shea), 1922 (Finn to Kilpatrick), and 1928 (Kilpatrick to Kuzzyk & Olenik) were key; evidence included surveys, aerial photos, tax maps, and testimony (including long-time neighbor Osiper).
- A continuous path from Gooseneck Hill Road through Lots A and B to Lot 21 existed since at least 1934; evidence also showed a viable alternative route from Lot 21 north to Phinney Lane.
- Disputed boundary lines for Lot 30 and Lot B turned on ambiguous deed descriptions vs. physical monuments (stone walls/piles) and historic use; surveyor Woodis located monuments supporting Thurlow Parties’ boundaries, while Stefon offered an alternative survey relied on by Hulten Parties.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Does an easement exist across Lots A and B to Lot 21? | Thurlow: easement exists by necessity or implication (path long-used); express/right language in chain supports access. | Hulten: no easement over Lot B; Bromley only had authority over Lot A; alternative access exists. | Easement exists only across Lot A to A/B boundary (express to Lot A). No easement across Lot B — claims by necessity and implication fail. |
| 2) Easement by necessity (is alternative access unavailable?) | Thurlow: southern route to Gooseneck Hill is more convenient; northern route to Phinney Lane is impractical/wet. | Hulten: path to Phinney Lane is adequate for truck/tractor; alternative negates necessity. | No easement by necessity — clear and convincing evidence fails; path to Phinney Lane is a reasonable alternative. |
| 3) Easement by implication (was there intent and reasonable necessity?) | Thurlow: historic path and deed language (Finn→Shea) imply intended access over Lot B. | Hulten: deeds lack intent to create easement over Lot B; Finn/Bromley & Kilpatrick never granted such. | No easement by implication — insufficient evidence of intent and no showing of high necessity. |
| 4) Proper boundaries of Lot B and Lot 30 (quiet title) | Thurlow: monuments (stone walls/piles), Kilpatrick→Kuzzyk deed and tax maps support Thurlow boundaries (Woodis). | Hulten: alternative survey (Stefon) and deed math/acreage support Hulten boundaries. | Court credits Woodis and extrinsic evidence (monuments, Kilpatrick deed, Osiper testimony, tax maps). Northern boundary of Lot B ends at southern boundary of Lot 30 as in exhibit 2; judgment quieting title for Thurlow Parties on these boundaries. |
Key Cases Cited
- Christensen v. Reed, 105 Conn. App. 578 (discusses burden and standard for easement by necessity)
- Hollywyle Assn., Inc. v. Hollister, 164 Conn. 389 (necessity standard for easements)
- Lopinto v. Haines, 185 Conn. 527 (definition and standard for clear and convincing evidence)
- J. Frederick Scholes Agency v. Mitchell, 191 Conn. 353 (clear, precise and unequivocal evidence requirement)
- Labbadia v. Bailey, 147 Conn. 82 (right to maintain easement for its intended purpose)
- Utay v. G.C.S. Realty, LLC, 72 Conn. App. 630 (easement by implication — intent requirement; disfavoring implied grants)
- Sanders v. Dias, 108 Conn. App. 283 (necessity/benefit standard for implied easements)