227 Conn.App. 1
Conn. App. Ct.2024Background
- Plaintiffs (Walters and Masons) and defendants (Servidios) own adjacent properties in Greenwich, CT, separated by an unpaved, disputed area of Ridge Street.
- Plaintiffs sought to establish a right (easement) to travel across defendants' land for access to Cognewaugh Road—beyond what was expressly granted in their deeds (the Y right of way).
- The dispute involves whether any express or implied easement exists over the disputed area, referencing historic subdivision maps (maps 353, 3965, 3992) and deeds.
- Plaintiffs recorded affidavits falsely claiming an easement over defendants’ property, prompting counterclaims by defendants for trespass, slander of title, and statutory disturbance of rights.
- Following trial, the court ruled for the defendants on all counts, except for the slander of title claim, on which the appellate court reversed, finding insufficient evidence of malice.
- The court’s ruling extinguished any claimed easement by plaintiffs over the disputed area and affirmed defendants' ownership free of plaintiffs' claims, except on slander of title.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Express Easement | Deeds grant right to traverse all of Ridge St. to southern entrance | Deeds only grant access via specified Y right of way | No express easement beyond Y right of way |
| Implied Easement & Marketable Record Title | Right implied from subdivision maps and necessity for access | No intent or necessity; any old grant extinguished by act | No implied easement; extinguished by Marketable Record Title |
| Obstruction of Easement | Defendants’ blockages interfere with their easement rights | No easement exists to obstruct | No obstruction—no existing easement |
| Trespass | Acted under mistaken belief of easement, no intent | Plaintiffs intentionally entered; lack of right is enough | Trespass found—intent to enter sufficed |
| Slander of Title | Acted on good faith belief; no malice, no damages | Maliciously filed false affidavits clouding title | For plaintiffs—no malice shown, no damages awarded |
| Disturbance of Right (§47-41) | No unreasonable interference, harassment, or recklessness | Plaintiffs’ affidavits disturbed fee simple rights | For defendants—statute violation proven |
Key Cases Cited
- Martin Drive Corp. v. Thorsen, 66 Conn. App. 766 (2001) (defining express easement by grant)
- Deane v. Kahn, 317 Conn. 157 (2015) (deed interpretation is plenary where unambiguous, factual if ambiguous)
- Utay v. G.C.S. Realty, LLC, 72 Conn. App. 630 (2002) (implied easement requires intent and necessity)
- Il Giardino, LLC v. Belle Haven Land Co., 254 Conn. 502 (2000) (Marketable Record Title Act extinguishes unrecorded interests)
- Caciopoli v. Lebowitz, 131 Conn. App. 306 (2011) (intent for trespass satisfied by intent to enter, not intent to harm)
- Fountain Pointe, LLC v. Calpitano, 144 Conn. App. 624 (2013) (slander of title requires actual malice and pecuniary damages)