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

AC46504 - Aldin Associates Ltd. Partnership v. State ("The plaintiff, Aldin Associates Limited Partnership, which owns and operates gas stations where underground storage tanks for petroleum have been used, appeals from the judgment rendered by the trial court denying its request for a writ of mandamus against the defendants, the state of Connecticut and Katie Dykes, the Commissioner of Energy and Environmental Protection (commissioner), directing them to request the state comptroller (comptroller) to pay the plaintiff's approved applications that were submitted pursuant to an underground storage tank petroleum clean-up program administered by the defendants. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly (1) denied its request for a writ of mandamus and (2) failed to shift the burden of proof to the defendants. We disagree with both claims and affirm the judgment of the court.")

• AC46504 Concurrence in Part & Dissent in Part - Aldin Associates Ltd. Partnership v. State

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

AC46166 - Unifoods, S.A. de C.V. v. Magallanes ("The plaintiff, Unifoods, S.A. de C.V., appeals from the summary judgment rendered by the trial court in favor of the defendants Julia Magallanes and Calvin Cordulack on counts two through five of the plaintiff's operative complaint asserting violations of the Connecticut Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (CUFTA), General Statutes § 52-552a et seq. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly concluded that (1) the defendants satisfied their initial burden of demonstrating that no genuine issues of material fact existed and that, as a matter of law, the plaintiff's fraudulent transfer claims were time barred pursuant to General Statutes § 52-552j, and (2) after shifting the burden of proof to the plaintiff, the plaintiff had not established the existence of genuine issues of material fact regarding the timeliness of its claims. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

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

The 2024 edition of our research guide on Surface Water in Connecticut has been added to our research guides web page.

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

The 2024 edition of our research guide on Postjudgment Proceedings in Connecticut Mortgage Foreclosures has been added to our research guides web page.

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

AC46821 - D. J. v. F. D. ("In this partition action, the plaintiff, D. J., appeals from the judgment of the trial court ordering the equitable distribution of a parcel of real property jointly owned by the plaintiff and the defendant F. D. and ordering the defendant to pay the plaintiff $2000 as just compensation for his interest in the property pursuant to General Statutes § 52-500 (a). On appeal, the plaintiff contends that the court abused its discretion in determining that (1) he had only a minimal interest in the property and (2) the just compensation owed to him for his interest in the property was $2000. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Property Law,
• Recent Opinions

The 2024 edition of our research guide on Collection of Delinquent Property Taxes in Connecticut has been added to our research guides web page.

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

AC46307 - Thoma v. Watson ("The plaintiff, Reinald E. Thoma, as trustee of the Reinald E. Thoma Revocable Trust (trust), appeals following a trial to the court from the judgment rendered in favor of the defendant David Watson on the plaintiff's claim of adverse possession. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court (1) made several errors related to the issue of permissive use of the disputed property, including improperly raising that issue sua sponte after the close of evidence despite the defendant's failure to raise it by way of special defense; (2) made additional errors 'concerning issues of intent, motive, and subjective understanding'; (3) erroneously found that the plaintiff had failed to prove his case by clear and convincing evidence; and (4) failed to comply with General Statutes § 47-31 (f) by not determining the parties' respective interests in the disputed property. We disagree with the plaintiff's claims and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Property Law,
• Recent Opinions

The 2024 edition of our research guide on Dog Law in Connecticut has been added to our research guides webpage.

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

AC46940 - Middletown v. Wagner ("In this animal welfare action, the self-represented defendant Justin Wagner appeals from the judgment of the trial court vesting ownership of the dogs seized from a barn leased by the defendant and Destiny Jennings, together with the puppies subsequently born to those dogs, in the plaintiff, the city of Middletown, after it found that the dogs were neglected. On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) the trial court erred when it denied the defendant's motion to return property and suppress evidence obtained pursuant to a warrantless search and seizure of the property, (2) General Statutes §§ 22-329a and 53-247, as applied to the defendant and Jennings, are void for vagueness, (3) the police did not provide Jennings with fair notice of the law, (4) the court did not apply the proper legal standard, and (5) there was insufficient evidence presented at the hearing to support a finding that the dogs in the barn were neglected. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Property Law,
• Recent Opinions