DocketNumber: No. 119096
Citation Numbers: 2000 Conn. Super. Ct. 12056
Judges: HURLEY, JUDGE TRIAL REFEREE.
Filed Date: 9/29/2000
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
(1) has a prescriptive easement over a certain gravel road, a portion of which overlaps his property and the remainder of which abuts his property;
(2) that he is the absolute owner and in possession of a portion of land located on the westerly side of his property and the easterly side of the defendant's property (hereinafter referred to as "disputed land"); and CT Page 12057
(3) in the alternative, whether the plaintiff has acquired the disputed land by adverse possession.
The defendants have made counterclaims that: (1) they are the absolute owners and are in possession of the disputed land; (2) in the alternative, they claim they have acquired the disputed land by adverse possession.
The first issue to be decided is which party owns title to the disputed land. In this case, the court finds that the plaintiff has established through the testimony of his experts and the deed that he has, in fact, title to the disputed land.
In any boundary dispute, the court must first look to the deed. If the deed is clear and unambiguous, then it must be given effect. Apostles ofthe Sacred Heart v. Currot,
Inasmuch as the Court has found that the plaintiff is, in fact, the owner of the land by deed, it is not necessary for the court to make a determination as to whether or not he had adverse possession of the disputed area. Having been determined the title owner to the disputed CT Page 12058 area, it is not necessary to determine the plaintiffs claim of adverse possession or of prescriptive easement.
On the other hand, the defendant has claimed adverse possession to the land and the court must address that question.
To acquire title in land by adverse possession, a party must have possession of the property which is open, visible, notorious, adverse, exclusive, continuous and uninterrupted for a period of 15 years.Bridgeport Hydraulic Co. v. Sciortano,
The evidence was clear that although the defendants claimed adverse possession, they did not show that they had exclusive use of the land, but merely shared dominion over the property with the plaintiff. The defendants did not dispute that the Lisiewskis regularly walked on the disputed area to maintain their bushes and, as part of the disputed area, falls on the east side of the wall, the Seidels admitted they never maintained this area or considered it to be their own.
Because the Seidels failed to keep the Lisiewskis out of the disputed area uninterruptedly for 15 years, they have not proven that they have adversely possessed the area by clear and convincing evidence. For the same reasons, the court finds that the defendants have failed to prove that they have a prescriptive easement over the property of the plaintiff.
Accordingly, the court finds in favor of the plaintiffs in regard to the defendants' claim of adverse possession and finds that the defendants did not possess the land by adverse possession. Therefore, the court CT Page 12059 finds in favor of the plaintiffs that they have clear title to the disputed area and judgment must enter for the plaintiffs.
D. Michael Hurley Judge Trial Referee