DocketNumber: No. CV00-0071199S
Citation Numbers: 2003 Conn. Super. Ct. 2905-ae
Judges: RIPLEY, JUDGE TRIAL REFEREE.
Filed Date: 2/27/2003
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 7/5/2016
The testimony adduced at the trial indicates that the parties co-existed as neighbors without incident until 1998 when the defendant erected a deck attached to his residence which violated the sideline requirements between the adjacent properties. The defendant had obtained a variance for the construction. It was thought at that time by the defendant that pine trees growing in a line from front to back between the houses of the parties constituted the boundary line (see P. Ex. 14, 16) but the plaintiff disputed this and the issues regarding the actual boundary line arose. The plaintiff had the property surveyed and the property line was found to be as indicated in Plaintiff's Exhibit 14. Clearly the row of trees is well within the bounds of the plaintiff's property. It is the claim of the plaintiff that the defendant thereafter continued to dump grass clippings on the plaintiff's side of the property line. The plaintiff then erected a fence extending from the street side of the property to a point somewhat short of the rear boundary line CT Page 2905-af between the two properties as shown in Plaintiff's Exhibit 21. This fence, however, is located about one foot inside the plaintiff's property line leaving a piece of property approximately a foot wide for the length of the fence. This makes it impossible for the plaintiff to access or maintain this space without trespassing upon the defendant's property. The evidence also discloses that the defendant in an effort to improve the appearance of this strip installed mulch and flagstones but upon learning of the location of the property line removed the flagstone. (See P. Ex. 25-26.)
The plaintiff, by locating the fence only a foot or so on her side of the property line, necessarily precludes her from attending to this portion of her property without trespassing upon defendant's property. Therefore, the court concludes that the plaintiff has waived any right to claim a trespass on the part of the defendant in his attempts to improve the appearance of the strip as it was created by the plaintiff by her location of the fence.
The determination of the court that the plaintiff has waived any claim of trespass is somewhat akin to a determination that an easement of necessity has been created by actions of the plaintiff in her location of the fence, although of course there is not the transfer of a property interest necessary to the creation of easement of necessity. SeeHollywyle Assn., Inc. v. Hollister,
As to the counterclaim put forth by the defendant regarding tree branches overhanging his property he is free to lop off any branches up to the line of his land. McCrann v. Town Plan and Zoning Commission,
CT Page 2905-agGeorge W. Ripley II Judge Trial Referee
[EDITORS' NOTE: This page is blank.] CT Page 2905-ah