The 2025 edition of our research guide Abandoned, Lost or Unclaimed Property in Connecticut has been added to our research guide page.

• Posted in:
• FYI,
• Legal Research,
• Property Law,
• Self-Help

AC46314 - Maefair Health Care Center, Inc. v. Noka ("The plaintiff, Maefair Health Care Center, Inc., appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying its application for a prejudgment remedy filed against Susan Noka, the conservator of the person and estate of Patricia N. Erts. On appeal, the plaintiff claims, inter alia, that the court incorrectly concluded that General Statutes § 52-278a did not permit the plaintiff to attach the decedent's interest in certain real property. We agree and reverse the judgment of the court.")

• Posted in:
• Contract Law,
• Probate Law,
• Property Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC47992 - Finkelstein v. 45 Lake Drive, LLC ("The plaintiff, Richard Finkelstein, appeals from the judgment of the trial court, rendered following a bench trial, in favor of the defendant, 45 Lake Drive, LLC, on count one of the plaintiff’s amended substitute complaint alleging a prescriptive easement over the defendant’s property. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly determined that (1) his use of the defendant’s property was not (a) open and visible and (b) continuous and uninterrupted for fifteen years, and (2) he failed to establish the bounds of the alleged prescriptive easement with reasonable certainty. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Property Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC46665 - Metropolitan District v. Mott ("The defendants and counterclaim plaintiffs David B. Mott and Jacqueline L. Mott (defendants) appeal from the judgment of the trial court rendered on their counterclaim seeking a declaratory judgment and to quiet title with respect to an express easement encumbering their property, which easement inures to the benefit of the plaintiff and counterclaim defendant, the Metropolitan District (plaintiff). On appeal, the defendants' claims distill to whether the court (1) committed error in issuing relief, (2) improperly failed to address certain issues, (3) improperly rendered judgment on their quiet title claim in the plaintiff's favor, (4) abused its discretion in admitting evidence during trial, and (5) improperly declined to award them attorney's fees and costs. We reverse the judgment of the trial court only insofar as the court rendered judgment for the plaintiff on the entirety of the defendants' quiet title claim.")

• Posted in:
• Declaratory Judgment Law,
• Property Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC47637 - McHenry Solar, LLC v. Hampton ("In this tax appeal, the plaintiff, McHenry Solar, LLC, appeals from the trial court's denial of its motion for summary judgment in which it argued that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on its claim that certain personal property that it uses to generate electricity is exempt from taxation pursuant to General Statutes § 12-81 (76), which provides for the exemption of machinery and equipment used for manufacturing. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court incorrectly concluded that it was not entitled to the exemption pursuant to § 12-81 (76) because the generation of electricity is not manufacturing within the meaning of the exemption. We affirm the judgment of the trial court and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.")

• Posted in:
• Administrative Appeal Law,
• Property Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC46424 - Berglass v. Dworkin ("The plaintiff, Steven Berglass, trustee of the Steven Berglass Revocable Living Trust, appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing his complaint against the defendants, Heidi Dworkin and Jay Dworkin. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly dismissed his action without providing notice and the opportunity to be heard following a hearing on the plaintiff's motion for a temporary injunction, to which the defendants had filed an objection. He further claims that the court improperly made findings of fact in the absence of any evidence. We agree with the plaintiff as to both of his claims, and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Civil Procedure,
• Property Law,
• Recent Opinions

The 2025 edition of our research guide "Glossary of Connecticut Real Property Law Terms" has been added to our research guides webpage.

• Posted in:
• FYI,
• Legal Research,
• Property Law,
• Self-Help

AC47215 - Pittu v. Bugaj Contractors Co., LLC ("The defendant, Bugaj Contractors Company, LLC, appeals from the judgment of the trial court discharging a mechanic's lien that it had placed on certain real property owned by the plaintiffs, Sarah Pittu and Raul Herrera. The defendant claims that the court improperly (1) shifted the burden of proof to the defendant at the hearing held pursuant to General Statutes § 49-35a on the plaintiffs' application to discharge the mechanic's lien by requiring it to prove that it did not breach a contract entered into between the parties, rather than requiring it to prove only that there was probable cause to sustain its lien, (2) found, 'presumably by clear and convincing evidence,' that the defendant breached the contract between the parties, and (3) concluded that the mechanic's lien was premised entirely on the contract and, therefore, failed to sustain the lien on the basis of applicable principles of restitution and/or unjust enrichment. (Emphasis omitted.) In support of its first claim, the defendant argues that it was not obligated to prove a breach of contract claim at the hearing. We agree that the trial court incorrectly determined that its finding that the defendant breached the parties' contract precluded the defendant from establishing a valid mechanic's lien and, accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the court and remand the case for further proceedings.")

• Posted in:
• Property Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC47321 - Ringel v. Gottlieb ("In this property dispute, the plaintiffs, Gerald Ringel and Wanda Ringel, appeal from the judgment of the trial court, rendered after a bench trial, in favor of the defendant, Maria Genedina Gottlieb. On appeal, the plaintiffs claim that the court erred by (1) holding that the warranty deed at issue clearly and unambiguously reserved a general beach easement for the defendant's use of the plaintiffs' property above the mean high water line and (2) making findings and issuing orders pertaining to claims that the defendant had withdrawn prior to trial. We agree and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Property Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC46379 - Giglio v. Ardohain ("The plaintiff, Cynthia Giglio, appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the defendants, Janine Ardohain, Sean McAleer, and American Marine Electronics, LLC (AME). On appeal, the plaintiff contends that the court improperly (1) determined that the defendants' conduct did not constitute a private nuisance and (2) declined to grant injunctive relief due to the defendants' violation of certain municipal zoning regulations. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Property Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC47692- Gancsos v. Israel "This appeal arises from a dispute between owners of abutting properties located in Cheshire. The defendants, Lior Israel and Perla Israel, appeal from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the plaintiff, Mark Gancsos, in the plaintiff's action alleging trespass and breach of contract. On appeal, the defendants claim that the trial court improperly (1) found that the defendants trespassed on the plaintiff's property and (2) ordered injunctive relief. We affirm the judgment of the trial court."

• Posted in:
• Contract Law,
• Property Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC47240 - Norwich v. GHT Trust ("This consolidated appeal involves three separate actions brought by the plaintiff in each action, the city of Norwich (city), seeking to foreclose municipal tax liens on three properties, each of which was held by a different trust. The defendants in the respective actions, The GHT Trust, The Rebner Land Trust, and RLS Trust, appeal from the judgments of the trial court, Spallone, J., denying their motions to open after the trial court, K. Murphy, J., rendered judgments of foreclosure in favor of the city and title had vested in others. On appeal, the defendants claim, inter alia, that the court failed to decide whether it lacked personal jurisdiction over the defendants due to insufficient service of process. We agree and, accordingly, reverse the judgments denying the motions to open and remand the cases to the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Foreclosure Law,
• Property Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC47206 - One Eighty-Five Stagg Associates v. Linwood Avenue III, LLC (Negligence; motion for directed verdict; sufficiency of evidence; "On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court erred in (1) granting the defendants’ motion for a directed verdict on the basis that the plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence in support of its claims, and (2) ordering the redaction of certain statements contained in a documentary exhibit presented by the plaintiff. We agree with the plaintiff with respect to both claims and, accordingly, reverse in part the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Property Law,
• Recent Opinions,
• Tort Law

AC46974 - Pirri v. Chow ("The substitute defendant, Mong Chin Liu, appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the substitute plaintiff, Rosaria Pirri, executor of the estate of the plaintiff, Eugenio Pirri, on her claim of adverse possession with respect to a portion of the substitute defendant's property (disputed area). On appeal, the substitute defendant claims that the trial court clearly erred in finding that the plaintiff adversely possessed the disputed area under a claim of right. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Property Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC47071 - Spinnato v. Boyd ("The defendant Charles Bruno appeals from the judgment of the trial court, rendered after a bench trial, in favor of the plaintiff Catherine Spinnato on the plaintiff's request for a declaratory judgment in the operative complaint and on the defendant's operative counterclaim. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court erred in (1) construing the word 'liquidate' in the trust instrument to require neither the sale nor the distribution of the trust property within one year of the death of the decedent, Nancy A. Bruno (decedent), (2) ruling against him on one of his claims for breach of fiduciary duty, (3) refusing to impute knowledge of the terms of the trust to the plaintiff, and (4) declining to rule simultaneously on the plaintiff's claim for reimbursement of attorney's fees and, instead, ordering additional proceedings to be held on that issue. For the reasons that follow, we disagree with the defendant's first, second, and fourth claims and deem the defendant's third claim to be abandoned as inadequately briefed. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Declaratory Judgment Law,
• Property Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC46367 - Hamer v. Byrne ("This appeal centers on three adjacent properties located in Westport. The plaintiffs, Christopher J. Hamer and Cynthia Hamer, appeal from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the defendants, Janis Melone, Marian Byrne, Jack Precious, and Rachel Precious, on all but one portion of one count of the plaintiffs' cause of action. In their appeal, the plaintiffs claim that the court erred in (1) denying the plaintiffs' claim that Marian improperly erected a spite fence; (2) not awarding the plaintiffs damages in connection with the construction of the spite fence; (3) not ordering the removal of Janis' mailbox, Janis' fence, and Marian's mailbox from the easement area; and (4) finding that the plaintiffs had not sustained their burden and proven their cause of action for adverse possession. The Byrnes cross appeal from the judgment of the court, rendered in part in favor of the plaintiffs, on the Byrnes' counterclaim. In their cross appeal, the Byrnes claim that the court erred in (1) failing to find that Christopher's actions constituted the commission of a prima facie tort and (2) awarding only nominal damages to Rachel and Jack with respect to their vexatious litigation claim. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Property Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC46449 - Whelan v. Brestelli ("In this action alleging, inter alia, the breach of a settlement agreement resolving disputes between abutting lakefront property owners, the defendants Christopher Brestelli and Virginia Brestelli (Brestellis) appeal, following a bench trial, from the judgment of the trial court rendered against them in favor of the plaintiffs, Benjamin Whelan and Alyson Whelan (Whelans), and from the court's subsequent award of costs and reasonable attorney's fees to the Whelans. The Brestellis claim that the court improperly (1) determined that they breached their settlement agreement with the Whelans; (2) found that they had erected a so-called 'spite fence' in violation of General Statutes §§ 52-480 and 52-570; (3) allowed the Whelans to amend their complaint during trial to add an additional count sounding in breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (4) rendered judgment in favor of the Whelans for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; and (5) exceeded the scope of the parties' settlement agreement by awarding attorney's fees and costs to the Whelans. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the court.")

• Posted in:
• Contract Law,
• Property Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC46938 - Camozzi v. Pierce ("In this action regarding title to a 1.46 acre parcel of land (disputed parcel), the plaintiff, Myron Camozzi, appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the defendant, Eric Pierce, on the plaintiff's complaint seeking declaratory and injunctive relief and alleging trespass and theft and on the defendant's counterclaim alleging that he is the owner of the disputed parcel. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly found (1) that the chain of title to 105 Westbrook Road in Deep River (property) included the disputed parcel, and (2) that no evidence other than the acreage call indicates that the disputed parcel was severed from the property. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the court.")

• Posted in:
• Property Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC47132 - Park Seymour Associates, LLC v. Hartford ("The plaintiffs, Park Seymour Associates, LLC (Seymour), and Park Squire Associates, LLC (Squire), appeal from the judgments rendered in favor of the defendants, the city of Hartford (city) and the city's Board of Assessment Appeals, after a consolidated trial to the court in these actions brought as municipal tax appeals pursuant to General Statutes § 12-119. On appeal, the plaintiffs claim that the trial court's judgments in favor of the defendants were improper in that the court made a clearly erroneous finding that the plaintiffs had not proven the existence of tax abatement agreements. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.")

AC46674 - Pascual v. Perry ("The plaintiffs, Alexa Pascual and Freiny Francisco, appeal, following a trial to the court, from the judgment rendered in favor of the defendant, Tammy K. Perry, on the count of her counterclaim alleging adverse possession. On appeal, the plaintiffs claim that the court erroneously concluded that (1) the defendant's and her predecessor in title's use of the disputed area was open and visible; (2) the defendant's predecessor in title's possession of the disputed area was hostile; and (3) the defendant could tack her predecessor in title's period of adverse possession onto her own, and, additionally, (4) the court erred in failing to find that the defendant's adverse possession rights were extinguished by the judgment of foreclosure rendered against the plaintiffs' predecessor in title. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• AC46674 Dissent - Pascual v. Perry

• Posted in:
• Property Law,
• Recent Opinions

SC21024 - 7 Germantown Road, LLC v. Danbury ("This joint public interest appeal, which stems from six individual tax appeals filed in the Superior Court, requires us to determine whether a property owner's failure to timely file an appraisal in accordance with General Statutes (Rev. to 2023) § 12-117a (a) (2), in a tax appeal involving real property assessed at one million dollars or more, implicates the Superior Court's subject matter jurisdiction over the tax appeal. We conclude that the appraisal filing requirement in General Statutes (Rev. to 2023) § 12-117a (a) (2) is not jurisdictional in nature and, accordingly, affirm the judgments of the Superior Court.")

• Posted in:
• Property Law,
• Recent Opinions