169 Conn. App. 653
Conn. App. Ct.2016Background
- Plaintiff Village Apartments claimed a deeded right-of-way (easement) created in 1877 across property now owned by defendants Stanley and Rose Ward and by a church; plaintiff sued to quiet title.
- Defendants invoked the Connecticut Marketable Title Act (MTA), arguing the right-of-way was extinguished because it was not preserved in the parties’ roots of title.
- Plaintiff’s root of title: a 1968 deed referencing recorded easements generally; defendants’ root(s) of title: 1944 deed(s) referring to a “Frank Calvert” right-of-way but not describing it, incorporating the creating instrument, or identifying a recorded transaction that created the easement.
- Trial court found no physical signs of a cart path or track in the disputed area; photographs showed boulders, mature trees, and no usable path.
- Court concluded the MTA extinguished the claimed easement because the muniments did not specifically identify the recorded instrument creating the right-of-way and statutory exceptions (apparent easements under § 47-33h) did not apply.
- Judgment quieted title in favor of defendants; plaintiff appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the MTA preserved the 1877 right-of-way when the right predated the roots of title | The 1944 deeds’ reference to the "Frank Calvert" right-of-way sufficiently identified the easement and put a title searcher on notice; location references were necessary to describe conveyed tracts | The 1944 roots do not specifically identify a recorded transaction creating the easement and are too vague under § 47-33d | Court: Reference was insufficient; easement extinguished absent specific identification of the recorded instrument creating it |
| Whether visible physical evidence preserved the easement under § 47-33h ("other physical facility") | Merestones, remnants of a fence, and remnants of a cart path are physical evidence within the statute’s catchall and thus preserve the easement | § 47-33h is limited to physical facilities that themselves evidence and effectuate easements (e.g., pipes, sewers, roads, tracks), not indirect markers like merestones or fences | Court: No cart path or track existed; merestones and fences are not "other physical facility" as a matter of law and do not preserve the easement |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. Sourignamath, 90 Conn. App. 388, 877 A.2d 891 (Conn. App. 2005) (interpreting MTA specificity requirement for pre-root interests)
- Coughlin v. Anderson, 270 Conn. 487, 853 A.2d 460 (Conn. 2004) (explaining marketable record title under MTA)
- McBurney v. Cirillo, 276 Conn. 782, 889 A.2d 759 (Conn. 2006) (describing when general references in muniments preserve pre-root interests)
- Il Giardino, LLC v. Belle Haven Land Co., 254 Conn. 502, 757 A.2d 1103 (Conn. 2000) (MTA’s purpose to simplify title searches and limit historic record examination)
- Simonds v. Shaw, 44 Conn. App. 683, 691 A.2d 1102 (Conn. App. 1997) (applying § 47-33h exception to a roadway not limited to utilities)
- Reiner, Reiner & Bendett, P.C. v. Cadle Co., 278 Conn. 92, 897 A.2d 58 (Conn. 2006) (standard of review for factual findings)