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

THOMAS CAPPO ET AL. v. MARK R. SUDA, JR., ET AL. (AC 31547)
Gruendel, Beach and Dupont, Js. Argued October 12, 2010--officially released January 11, 2011

(Appeal from Superior Court, judicial district of Stamford-Norwalk, Brazzel-Massaro, J.) Peter M. Nolin, with whom, on the brief, was Susan R. Briggs, for the appellants (defendants). Louis Ciccarello, for the appellee (plaintiff).

Opinion

DUPONT, J. The defendants, Mark R. Suda, Jr., and Michelle L. Suda, appeal from the rendering of summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, Thomas Cappo and certain other neighbors who reside on Ox Yoke Lane in Norwalk,1 on both the plaintiffs' complaint and the defendants' counterclaim. The court rendered summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs on their complaint in which they sought to enforce a restrictive covenant through a temporary and permanent injunction preventing the defendants from resubdividing the defendants' property and from constructing a second dwelling. The court also rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiffs on the counterclaim in which the defendants sought a declaratory judgment that the restriction on their property had been extinguished and that they may be permitted to proceed with their resubdivision and construction. The defendants, in both the answer to the plaintiffs' complaint and in the allegations of their counterclaim, admit that the properties belonging to the plaintiffs and the defendants are depicted on a ``Map Showing Section Two of Cricklewood, Norwalk . . . as Map No. 3714'' (Section Two) and admit that their deed contains a reference to restrictive covenants as set forth in volume 416 at page 118 of the Norwalk land records. This restriction, as provided in their warranty deed, states: ``Said tract is subject to the following restrictions: 1. No more than one dwelling together with an attached garage shall be constructed thereon.''2 ``In general, restrictive covenants fall into three classes: (1) mutual covenants in deeds exchanged by adjoining landowners; (2) uniform covenants contained in deeds executed by the owner of property who is dividing his property into building lots under a general development scheme; and (3) covenants exacted by a grantor from his grantee presumptively or actually for the benefit and protection of his adjoining land which he retains. . . . With respect to the second class of covenants, any grantee under such a general or uniform development scheme may enforce the restrictions against any other grantee.''3 (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Contegni v. Payne, 18 Conn. App. 47, 51

Download Cappo v. Suda.pdf

Connecticut Law