SANLE ZHANG ET AL.
56 LOCUST ROAD, LLC
May 24, 2017
Michael J. Cacace, with whom was Ronald E. Kowal-ski II, for
the appellant-appellee (defendant).
Richard E. Castiglioni, with whom were Bridgitte E. Mott and,
on the brief, Jonathan J. Kelson, for the
Lavine, Mullins and West, Js.
plaintiffs sought to quiet title to certain real property.
The trial court rendered judgment for the plaintiffs on their
complaint and in favor of the defendant in part on a
counterclaim it had filed, from which the defendant appealed
and the plaintiffs cross appealed to this court. The trial
court had found in the plaintiffs' favor on their claim
of adverse possession and, with respect to the counterclaim,
granted the defendant an easement by necessity over the
disputed area. On appeal, the defendant claimed, inter alia,
that the trial court improperly found in favor of the
plaintiffs on their claim of adverse possession, and on cross
appeal, the plaintiffs claimed that the court erred in
granting the defendant the easement by necessity.
Held that the trial court having fully and
accurately addressed the relevant issues in its memorandum of
decision, and having set forth a proper statement of the
facts and applicable law, further discussion by this court
was not necessary, and the judgment was affirmed.
to quiet title to certain real property allegedly acquired by
adverse possession, and for other relief, brought to the
Superior Court in the judicial district of Stamford-Norwalk,
where the defendant filed acounter-claim; thereafter, the
matter was tried to the court, Povodator, J.;
judgment for the plaintiffs on the complaint and in part for
the defendant on the counterclaim, from which the defendant
appealed and the plaintiffs cross appealed to this court.
defendant, 56 Locust Road, LLC, appeals from the judgment of
the trial court quieting title to a disputed area of land in
favor of the plaintiffs, Sanle Zhang and Yanpin Li, and
granting the defendant a ten foot easement by necessity over
the easterly portion of the disputed area. The plaintiffs
cross appeal from the portion of the judgment in which the
court granted the defendant the easement by necessity. On
appeal, the defendant claims: (1) because the plaintiffs'
predecessors in title did not convey, either orally or by
deed, their interest in the disputed area, the trial court
erred in finding in favor of the plaintiffs on their claim of
adverse possession; (2) the trial court failed to balance the
equities in this case by rejecting the defendant's
equitable defenses; (3) General Statutes §§ 47-37
and 52-575 are unconstitutional because they permit a taking
of property without just compensation; and (4) the easement
granted by the court may not provide meaningful access to the
defendant because the court specifically subjected the
easement to the town's land use
regulations. The plaintiffs claim on cross appeal that
the court erred in granting the defendant an easement by
examined the appellate record and having considered the
briefs and the arguments of the parties, we conclude that the
judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. The trial
court fully and accurately addressed the issues relevant to
the parties' appeals and, in its memorandum of decision,
set forth a proper statement of both the facts and the
applicable law. Any further discussion by this court would
serve no useful purpose.
judgment is affirmed.