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. ******************************************************

TOWN OF BRANFORD v. THOMAS SANTA BARBARA, JR., ET AL. (SC 18089) NEW ENGLAND ESTATES, LLC v. TOWN OF BRANFORD (SC 18091)
Norcott, Katz, Palmer, Zarella and McLachlan, Js.* Argued May 26, 2009--officially released February 16, 2010

Wesley W. Horton, with whom were William H. Clendenen, Jr., Kimberly A. Knox and, on the brief, Kevin C. Shea, Kenneth J. Bartschi, David A. Reif, Matthew A. Weiner and Jonathan M. Freiman, for the appellant (defendant town of Branford). Timothy S. Hollister, with whom were Sheila A. Huddleston and, on the brief, Jill O'Toole, for the appellee (plaintiff New England Estates, LLC). Linda L. Morkan, with whom, on the brief, were Steven R. Humphrey, Brian R. Smith and Jeffrey J. White, for the appellees (plaintiffs Thomas Santa Barbara, Jr., et al.). McLACHLAN, J. These two consolidated appeals,6 as well as the two companion cases also decided today; see Branford v. Santa Barbara, 294 Conn. 803, A.2d (2010); New England Estates, LLC v. Branford, 294 Conn. 817, A.2d (2010); arise from the exercise of eminent domain by the defendant town of Branford (town), with respect to an approximately seventy-seven acre parcel of land, known as 48-86 Tabor Drive, in the south central area of town. The town appeals from the judgments of the trial court in favor of the plaintiffs, Thomas Santa Barbara, Jr., and Frank Perrotti, Jr., the owners of the subject property at the time of the taking (owners), and the plaintiff, New England Estates, LLC (New England Estates), a developer that had entered into an option contract with the owners to purchase the property.7 The town claims that the trial court improperly concluded that the highest and best use of the property was for residential development. The town bases this claim primarily on the contention that, in order for the trial court to so conclude, it first must have concluded that New England Estates would have prevailed in an appeal pursuant to General Statutes

Download Branford v. Santa Barbara.pdf

Connecticut Law