223 Conn.App. 849
Conn. App. Ct.2024Background
- Plaintiffs owned properties in the Groton Long Point area of Groton, Connecticut, each abutting one of two narrow rights-of-way owned by the defendant homeowners association.
- Plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment that they had exclusive rights to use the abutting rights-of-way to the exclusion of all others (including association members and the public).
- The rights-of-way were originally part of a tract subdivided by the developer (Groton Long Point Land Company) in the 1920s; ownership passed to the association in 1931, subject to previously granted rights-of-way.
- The plaintiffs claimed various bases for exclusive rights: express or implied easements, adverse possession, prescriptive easement, and abandonment.
- Both parties moved for summary judgment. The trial court granted the defendant association's motion, denied plaintiffs', and plaintiffs appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exclusive easement by deed or implication | Deeds and maps create exclusive easements for abutters; may use extrinsic evidence to show company intent | No exclusive language in deeds; easements (if any) are non-exclusive and serve access | No exclusive easement; no ambiguity in deeds; extrinsic evidence not considered. |
| Adverse possession/prescriptive easement | Plaintiffs' use (vegetation maintenance, personal uses) was open, visible, hostile, and exclusive for 15 yrs | Plaintiffs' use was not hostile or exclusive; any use was permitted as association members | No sufficient evidence of open, visible, hostile use for 15 years; claim fails as a matter of law. |
| Ownership by abandonment | Defendant abandoned rights-of-way by nonuse and neglect for decades | Abandonment must be linked to adverse possession; nonuse alone is not enough | Abandonment claim intertwined with adverse possession; court not required to address as separate cause of action |
| Treatment of extrinsic evidence | Extrinsic evidence of deeds, maps, and intent should be considered due to claimed ambiguity | Deeds are unambiguous, so extrinsic evidence is inadmissible | Deeds are clear; extrinsic evidence inadmissible to create ambiguity where none exists. |
Key Cases Cited
- Buckley v. Maxson, 120 Conn. 511 (1935) (reference to land as boundary can create an easement by implication)
- Bolan v. Avalon Farms Property Owners Assn., Inc., 250 Conn. 135 (1999) (owners of abutting property typically have a right of ingress and egress but not exclusive use)
- Francini v. Goodspeed Airport, LLC, 327 Conn. 431 (2018) (differences between easements by implication and by necessity; focus on parties' intent)
- Smith v. Muellner, 283 Conn. 510 (2007) (requirements for establishing prescriptive easement in Connecticut)
- Slack v. Greene, 294 Conn. 418 (2009) (requirements for prescription include continuous, open, and adverse use for 15 years)
- Dowling v. Heirs of Bond, 345 Conn. 119 (2022) (burden and elements of adverse possession in Connecticut)
- Campanelli v. Candlewood Hills Tax District, 126 Conn. App. 135 (2011) (municipal immunity from adverse possession; abandonment requires intent)