Bennett v. BowditchBennett v. Bowditch
******************************************************
The “officially released” date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the “officially released” date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the “officially released” date.
All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative.
The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut.
******************************************************
Thomas L. Kanasky, Jr., filed a brief for the appellants (defendants).
Ann Marie Willinger and James A. Lenes filed a brief for the appellee (plaintiff).
Opinion
BEACH, J.
There are three areas of land at issue in this appeal, two distinct parcels of property and an easement over a different parcel of property. The defendants held title in fee to parcels one and two and also owned an easement in the form of a passway extending over the plaintiff‘s property. Parcel one was a rectangular area approximately ten feet wide and thirty feet long that was located in the rear of the plaintiff‘s property, between the plaintiff‘s property and the defendants’ property. A chain-link and razor wire fence, which had been in place for decades, separated parcel one from the defendants’ Fairfield Avenue property.2 Parcel two was a triangular area running from the front of the plaintiff‘s house on Bennett Street at its apex to the rear of parcel one. The easement was an eight foot passway that extended across the plaintiff‘s property from Bennett Street to the rear of the property and was adjacent to parcels one and two. The passway rights benefited the defendants’ property and initially were established in a 1916 deed. The plaintiff used parcel one as part of his driveway and as a parking area. He used parcel two as part of his driveway for access to the rear of his property. The defendants’ passway rights extended over the remainder of the plaintiff‘s driveway and provided access from Bennett Street to parcels one and two.
For the entire period since purchasing the Bennett Street property in 1963, Patrick Bennett either had resided in the home or had rented it to relatives. He or the plaintiff had continuously maintained the property, as well as the three areas of land at issue. Patrick Bennett had paved parcels one and two with asphalt, along with the portion of the driveway that he owned in fee. The plaintiff later covered the asphalt with crushed stones to fill in holes. Either Patrick Bennett or the plaintiff had removed snow from the driveway and the two parcels since 1963, and, at least since that time, the parcels had been used as part of the driveway for the plaintiff‘s property. The plaintiff installed a privacy fence along the chain-link fence separating parcel one from the rest of the defendants’ Fairfield Avenue property. According to a longtime neighbor of the plaintiff, the chain-link fence had separated the defendants’ Fairfield Avenue property from parcel one since at least the 1950s. Since Patrick Bennett purchased the Bennett Street property in 1963, the three areas in contention never had been used by anyone other than the plaintiff and members of his family.3 There was no
The plaintiff commenced this action against the defendants on August 23, 2011, to quiet title pursuant to
We set forth the standard of review necessary for our resolution of this appeal. “[T]o establish title by adverse possession, the claimant must oust an owner of possession and keep such owner out without interruption for fifteen years by an open, visible and exclusive possession under a claim of right with the intent to use the property as his [or her] own and without the consent of the owner. . . . It is sufficient if there is an adverse possession continued uninterruptedly for fifteen years whether by one or more persons. . . . [T]he
“A finding of [a]dverse possession is not to be made out by inference, but by clear and positive proof. . . . [C]lear and convincing proof denotes a degree of belief that lies between the belief that is required to find the truth or existence of the [fact in issue] in an ordinary civil action and the belief that is required to find guilt in a criminal prosecution. . . . [The burden] is sustained if evidence induces in the mind of the trier a reasonable belief that the facts asserted are highly prob-ably true, that the probability that they are true or exist is substantially greater than the probability that they are false or do not exist. . . . The burden of proof is on the party claiming adverse possession. . . .
“Despite [this] exacting standard, our scope of review is limited. . . . Because adverse possession is a question of fact for the trier . . . the court‘s findings as to this claim are binding upon this court unless they are clearly erroneous in light of the evidence and the pleadings in the record as a whole. . . . We cannot retry the facts or pass on the credibility of the witnesses. . . . A finding of fact is clearly erroneous when there is no evidence in the record to support it . . . or when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. . . . A trial court‘s findings in an adverse possession case, if supported by sufficient evidence, are binding on a reviewing court.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Skelly v. Brucher, 134 Conn. App. 337, 340–41 (2012). With this standard in mind, we address each of the defendants’ claims.
I
We first discuss parcels one and two. The defendants argue that the plaintiff failed to prove all of the elements of adverse possession by clear and convincing evidence. Specifically, they argue that the plaintiff did not plead6 that possession by the plaintiff and Patrick Bennett was without the consent, permission, or license of the owners of the property and that the plaintiff did not offer any proof as to that element. We are not persuaded that the court‘s finding of lack of consent was clearly erroneous. Rather, we conclude that there was sufficient evidence to support this finding.
In its memorandum of decision, the court found that “[t]he evidence clearly and convincingly established [that] since 1963, Patrick Bennett, predecessor in ownership, made improvements upon the three parcels without the consent of the defendants. He also used and occupied those three parcels without the permission or consent of the defendants.” The court further found that “the evidence clearly and convincingly establishes [that the plaintiff has] established hostile occupancy of the parcels.” Hostile occupancy implies lack of consent. See Woodhouse v. McKee, 90 Conn. App. 662, 672 (2005) (“[o]ur resolution of this appeal directs us to the element of hostility, that is the absence of consent“). “As a general proposition, to satisfy the hostility requirement of adverse possession, a claimant‘s
Our review of the record shows that there was evidence adduced at trial to support the court‘s finding that the plaintiff‘s use of parcels one and two was without the consent of the defendants or their predecessors in title. The plaintiff and his family repaired the driveway, removed snow, and landscaped the area continually since 1963. The evidence presented clearly showed that neither the defendants nor their predecessors in title had ever used or maintained either parcel one or parcel two since at least 1963. At all relevant times, access to the parcels from the defendants’ property was blocked by a chain-link and/or wood fence. The plaintiff and his predecessor in title exercised dominion and control over parcels one and two in a manner consistent with ownership since Patrick Bennett bought the property in 1963.
We conclude that the plaintiff presented sufficient evidence at trial to allow the trial court to find by clear and convincing evidence that the plaintiff‘s use of parcels one and two was without the consent of the defendants. We will not disturb that finding on appeal.
II
We next turn to the trial court‘s conclusion that the easement was extinguished. The defendants claim that the trial court improperly found that the plaintiff had presented sufficient evidence to prove that their easement rights had been extinguished. We disagree. The easement in question was the eight foot passway over the plaintiff‘s property that runs adjacent to parcels one and two.
“[O]ur case law makes clear that a claim of extinguishment of a right-of-way properly is established through prescriptive use.” Mierzejewski v. Brownell, 102 Conn. App. 413, 419 (2007), cert. denied, 284 Conn. 917 (2007). “If the servient owner . . . should by adverse acts lasting through the prescriptive period obstruct the dominant owner‘s . . . enjoyment, intending to deprive him of the easement, he may by prescription acquire the right to use his own land free from the easement.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Russo v. Terek, 7 Conn. App. 252, 255 (1986). “A servient owner can extinguish an easement by prescription by demonstrating that the use of the property has been open, visible, continuous, uninterrupted and under a claim of right for a period exceeding fifteen years. . . . The standard of proof required for the extinguishment of an easement by adverse use is that of a fair preponderance of the evidence. . . . Whether an easement has been extinguished by the adverse acts of a servient owner primarily presents a question of fact for the trier. . . . When the factual basis of the court‘s decision is challenged, the reviewing court must determine whether the facts are supported by the evidence or whether they are clearly erroneous. . . . In such cases, the trier‘s determination of fact will be disturbed only in the clearest of circumstances, where its conclusions could not reasonably be reached.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Mierzejewski v. Brownell, supra, 421.
The trial court found that the plaintiff‘s property and parcels one and two had been completely surrounded by a chain-link and razor wire fence blocking access to the defendants’ Fairfield Avenue property
Furthermore, the trial court found that title to parcels one and two vested in Patrick Bennett in 1978 because he maintained actual, open, notorious, hostile, continuous, and exclusive possession of the property for the fifteen year statutory period beginning in 1963. By acquiring parcels one and two by adverse possession, the plaintiff‘s predecessor in title deprived the defendants’ predecessor in title of the easement because it no longer provided access to the defendants’ property. Instead, the passway ran from Bennett Street across the plaintiff‘s property to the rear of his property, adjacent to parcel one, without access to the defendants’ property. Because the defendants were ousted from parcels one and two, there was no longer any use at all for the easement. Thus, when title to parcels one and two vested in Patrick Bennett, the easement was extinguished.7 We conclude that the findings are sufficiently supported by the evidence and that the court‘s conclusions were lawfully drawn.
The judgment is affirmed.
In this opinion the other judges concurred.