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

JAMES R.G. MCBURNEY ET AL. v. FRANK A. CIRILLO ET AL. JAMES R.G. MCBURNEY v. JAMES G. BALDWIN ET AL. JAMES R.G. MCBURNEY ET AL. v. ANTOINETTE F. VERDERAME ET AL. JAMES R.G. MCBURNEY v. PETER P. PAQUIN ET AL. (SC 17315)
Borden, Palmer, Vertefeuille, Zarella and Tierney, Js. Argued March 9, 2005--officially released January 24, 2006

Daniel J. Krisch, with whom were Wesley W. Horton

and, on the brief, Brendon P. Levesque and Sarah Eagan, legal intern, for the appellants-appellees (plaintiffs). William F. Gallagher, with whom, on the brief, was Hugh D. Hughes, for the appellees-appellants (defendants).
Opinion

BORDEN, J. In these consolidated appeals, four of the defendants appeal, the plaintiffs appeal, and four of the defendants cross appeal1 from the judgment of the trial court.2 The plaintiffs, James R.G. McBurney and Erin McBurney, brought these consolidated quiet title actions asserting claims for trespass and adverse possession, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against the defendants, all of whom own property in the same development as the plaintiffs. On appeal, the plaintiffs claim that the trial court improperly concluded that the defendants have implied and prescriptive easements over a portion of the plaintiffs' property. In their appeals and cross appeals, the defendants claim that the trial court improperly found for the plaintiffs against the Baldwin and Cirillo defendants on the trespassing count, and challenge the trial court's conclusion that all of the defendants lacked standing collaterally to attack the orders of the Probate Court permitting the plaintiffs to purchase the disputed area of land. We affirm in part and reverse in part the judgment of the trial court. The plaintiffs brought these four separate quiet title actions against the defendants, alleging claims for trespass and adverse possession and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief.3 The Verderame and Paquin defendants counterclaimed that they had acquired a prescriptive easement over the property; the Baldwin and Cirillo defendants raised the same claim by way of special defense. Those actions were subsequently consolidated for trial.4 After a court trial, the court rejected the plaintiffs' claims of adverse possession as against all defendants.5 On the plaintiffs' actions for trespass, the court found in favor of the plaintiffs against the Baldwin and Cirillo defendants, but found against the plaintiffs as to the Verderame and Paquin defendants. The trial court denied the plaintiffs' requested injunctive relief as against the Baldwin, Verderame and Paquin defendants, but granted the plaintiffs' requested relief as against the Cirillo defendants. Regarding the rights of the parties to the disputed property, the trial court determined that the plaintiffs held title to the land, and that the defendants had an easement, by virtue of both implication and prescription, over the property. These appeals followed. The trial court found the following relevant facts. The plaintiffs own property at 2 Crescent Bluff Avenue in the Pine Orchard section of Branford. That property

is identified as lot 4 on an 1885 plan (Baker plan), which was drafted following a survey of thirty-five building lots on a five acre tract of land (development) owned by Ellis B. Baker, trustee.6 In its description of the Baker plan and the development, the trial court quoted from this court's description in Fisk v. Ley, 76 Conn. 295, 56 A. 559 (1903), in which we considered a claim regarding the same development. ``The plan so filed showed that the tract [of land] was a long and narrow strip of upland about 220 feet in width, laid out into lots of nearly equal size on each side of an open space marked `Avenue' leading from the highway to an open space on which the four southerly lots [lots 2, 4, 1 and 3] faced, marked `Lawn.' The southerly boundary of the `lawn' was an irregular line substantially parallel to and some 40 feet distant from a line below which was marked `Long Island Sound' [Sound]. . . . Each lot was numbered. Those facing the lawn on the west [side] of the `Avenue' were numbered 2 and 4, lot 4 being the lot next to [the Avenue]. Lots 3 and 1 were on the other side of [the Avenue], lot 3 being next to it. Lots 1 and 2 [at that time] were only accessible by going over the `lawn.' . . . The `lawn' [is] a level, grassy piece of upland, not over 56 feet in depth at any point, terminating in a slope leading down to the beach, which [is] some 20 feet below.'' (Citation omitted.) Id., 297. Currently, beyond the lawn in front of lots 2 and 4 is a concrete slope, alongside which a concrete ramp runs down to the seawall walkway atop the seawall. Immediately adjacent to the concrete ramp, a set of stairs leads down to the water. The portion of the lawn in front of lot 4 extends eighteen feet between the southern border of lot 4 and the beginning of the concrete slope, which is now separated from the lawn by a fence that runs between the lawn and the concrete slope in front of lots 2 and 4. The relevant records in the chain of title to the plaintiffs' property trace back to a 1950 conveyance in fee, of lot 4, along with a ten foot strip of the lawn area south of lot 4 (first lawn parcel), from John Moran to Margaret Walker, which conveyance the parties agree constitutes the plaintiffs' root of title for purposes of the Connecticut Marketable Record Title Act (act), General Statutes

Download McBurney v. Cirillo.pdf

Connecticut Law