April 18, 2017
from Superior Court, judicial district of Litchfield, Marano,
Patrick E. Power, for the appellant (plaintiff).
L. Laudati, with whom, on the brief, were P. Jo Anne Burgh
and Casey Walker, pro hac vice, for the appellees
Keller, Prescott and Beach, Js.
action seeking to quiet title to a parcel of property located
along the Farmington River in New Hartford, the plaintiff,
Bert Brander, appeals from the judgment of the trial court
finding in favor of the defendants, Trisha Stoddard, in her
capacity as the temporary administrator for the estate of
Lily B. Frey, and the Farmington River Watershed Association,
Inc., on both counts of the operative
complaint. The plaintiff, who began using the
disputed parcel in 1984 to graze sheep and grow hay, alleged
that he acquired title through adverse possession or, in the
alternative, had a prescriptive easement for its use. In
response, the defendants argued that, for certain periods of
time, the plaintiff's use of the property had been with
the permission or implied consent of the owners. The matter
was tried to the court, Marano, J., over
two days in February, 2015. On August 6, 2015, the court
issued a memorandum of decision finding in favor of the
plaintiff claims on appeal that the court improperly
concluded that his use of the disputed property from 1984 to
1995 was not under a claim of right but, rather, was with the
permission of the record owners at the time, Henry Frey and
Lily Frey. The plaintiff also claims that the court
improperly concluded that his use of the property from 2004
to 2006 was not under a claim of right, but was with the
permission of the record owner, Lily Frey.
examined the record on appeal and having considered the
briefs and the arguments of the parties, we conclude that the
judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. Further,
because the court thoroughly addressed in its memorandum of
decision all of the arguments raised by the parties on
appeal, we adopt that well reasoned decision as a proper
statement of both the facts and the applicable law at issue.
See Brander v. Stoddard, 173 Conn.App., A.3d (2015)
(appendix). Any further discussion by this court would serve
no useful purpose. See, e.g., Woodruff v. Hemingway,
297 Conn. 317, 321, 2 A.3d 857 (2010).
judgment is affirmed.
Court, Judicial District of Litchfield File No.
filed August 6, 2015
of decision in action to quiet title. Judgment for the
E. Power, for the plaintiff.
Laudati, for the defendants.
Walker, pro hac vice, for the named defendant et al.
plaintiff, Bert Brander, brings this cause of action against
the defendants, Trisha Stoddard, in her capacities as
Connecticut temporary administrator of the estate of Lily
Frey and Florida personal representative of the estate of
Lily Frey, and the Farmington River Watershed Association,
Inc. In his two count complaint, filed with the court on
March 25, 2013, the plaintiff seeks to quiet title to
property located at 65 Farmington River Turnpike, New
Hartford, Connecticut (disputed property), based on claims of
adverse possession and prescriptive easement. The defendants
filed an answer on June 21, 2013, and an amended answer and
special defenses on February 13, 2015, alleging that the
plaintiff's use of the property was with the permission
of the owners. The matter was tried to the court on February
10 and 11, 2015. The parties filed posttrial briefs on May 4,
plaintiff argues that he acquired the entire disputed
property through adverse possession pursuant to General
Statutes § 52-575. In support of this argument, the
plaintiff alleges that from 1984 to the present he has used
the disputed property to graze his sheep and to grow hay.
While conceding that the titleholders to the property erected
a fence between the plaintiff's property and the disputed
property in 1993, he alleges that within a year he removed
the fence and resumed use of the property for grazing sheep
and growing hay. He further argues that any other use of the
land by the titleholders was insufficient to overcome his
possession of the property. He also argues that any initial
permission that was granted by the titleholders to the
plaintiff to use the disputed property for grazing and haying
was revoked in 1993 when they erected a fence and he
continued to use the property for grazing and haying from
1993 to the present, a period in excess of the fifteen years
mandated by § 52-575.
alternative, the plaintiff argues that he has acquired a
prescriptive easement over the disputed property to graze
sheep and grow hay. He argues that the only difference in
proof between a claim of adverse possession and a claim of
prescriptive easement is that with a prescriptive easement
possession need not be exclusive. Therefore, he argues that,
for the same reasons that he has satisfied the elements of
adverse possession, if the court were to find that his use of
the property was not exclusive, he would still satisfy the
elements of a prescriptive easement. He further argues that
such aprescriptive easement wouldbe an easement appurtenant
because use of the disputed property for grazing and haying
benefits the dominant estate, the adjacent Brander property,
and not the ...