March 11, 2019
from Superior Court in the judicial district of Hartford and
tried to the court, Moukawsher, J.
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
Benjamin M. Wattenmaker, with whom, on the brief, was John M.
Wolfson, Hartford, for the appellant (plaintiff).
W. Gasser, with whom, on the brief, was Margot E. Vanriel,
for the appellee (named defendant).
Elgo and Bishop, Js.
Conn.App. 385] In this action involving three lots of
commercial property and a drainage easement enjoyed by the
plaintiff, Sack Properties, LLC, the owner of two of those
lots, over the lot owned by the defendant Martel Real Estate,
LLC, the plaintiff challenges the judgment
of the trial court, rendered after a court trial, in part in
favor of the defendant. On appeal, the plaintiff claims
that the trial court improperly (1) rejected its quiet title
[191 Conn.App. 386] and trespass claims on the ground that it
failed to prove that it exclusively owned the pipe through
which its drainage easement ran, and (2) found that it failed
to prove that the defendant had overburdened its right
to use the drainage easement. We disagree, and, accordingly,
affirm the judgment of the trial court.
following relevant facts are undisputed. In 1976, the Town
Planning Commission of Canton approved a three lot
subdivision plan titled, "Powder Mill Industrial
Park," submitted by the then-owner of the property,
Henry Bahre. In 1978, Bahre filed a revised map of the
subdivision, as required by the town, showing a drainage
right-of-way, which commenced on the easterly line of lot 3,
then down the southerly line of lot 1 and northerly line of
lot 2, until it ran in its entirety down the northeast corner
of lot 2, and went under Powder Mill Road, before it dumped
into the Farmington River. The stormwater runoff passes under
the easement area by way of a 24 inch subsurface concrete
1984, Bahre conveyed all three lots to Inertia Dynamics, Inc.
The deed conveying lot 1 provided, inter alia: "Said
premises are subject to a twenty (20) foot drainage
right-of-way along the southeasterly boundary of the lot
..." The deed conveying lots 2 and 3 provided, inter
alia: "Lot No. 2 is subject to a drainage right-of-way
along the northerly line of [l]ot No. 2."
Subsequently, on April 30, 2003, Inertia Dynamics, Inc.
conveyed lot 2 back to Bahre. The deed conveying lot 2 to
Bahre provided that the "premises are subject to a
drainage right-of-way along the northerly line of [l]ot No.
2." It did not state who enjoyed that right-of-way. On
the same day, Inertia Dynamics, Inc., conveyed lots 1 and 3
to the plaintiff. The deed conveying lots 1 [191 Conn.App.
387] and 3 to the plaintiff provided that they were
"conveyed together with a drainage easement across
[l]ots 1 and 2 ...." Both of the 2003 deeds provided
that the property was being transferred "with the