Preview:

****************************************************** 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. ****************************************************** 1525 HIGHLAND ASSOCIATES, LLC v. GEORGE FOHL ET AL. (AC 19990)
Landau, Spear and Daly, Js. Argued October 31, 2000--officially released April 10, 2001 Counsel

John J. Resnik, with whom were Michael C. Forte, and, on the brief, Emily Resnik Conn, for the appellant (plaintiff). Kevin J. Hecht, with whom, on the brief, was Jeffrey J. Holley, for the appellee (named defendant).
Opinion

LANDAU, J. The plaintiff, 1525 Highland Associates, LLC, appeals from a judgment rendered by the trial court, following the jury's consideration of interrogatories,1 in favor of the defendant George Fohl.2 In this action, the plaintiff sought equitable relief enjoining the defendant from occupying the subject land, an affirmative injunction requiring the defendant to remove certain structures from the land and a judgment of possession. In its appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly (1) exercised its discretion by (a) per-

mitting the defendant to amend his first special defense of ouster3 and (b) denying the plaintiff's motion to cite in additional parties, (2) charged the jury on the issue of ouster, (3) submitted inappropriate interrogatories to the jury and (4) failed to grant the plaintiff's posttrial motions. We affirm the trial court's judgment. In its well reasoned memorandum of decision, the court set forth the following facts and procedural posture, which are at the center of the controversy. In the operative complaint, the plaintiff alleged that it was the owner of a parcel of land located in the town of Cheshire, described as parcel A on a certain map, having received title to the land by virtue of a quitclaim deed from Fairfield Clearing Company (Fairfield) dated December 31, 1993. The plaintiff further alleged that the defendant, the owner of adjoining premises, had encroached on a portion of the plaintiff's land. In his special defense, the defendant alleged that the deed conveying the land to the plaintiff was void as to the subject portion of Parcel A because the defendant had entered on and possessed the land in such a fashion as to constitute an ouster of the plaintiff's predecessors in title pursuant to General Statutes

Download 1525 Highland Associates, LLC v. Fohl.pdf

Connecticut Law