March 11, 2019
seeking, inter alia, to quiet title to certain real property,
and for other relief, brought to the Superior Court in the
judicial district of Hartford and tried to the court,
Moukawsher, J.; judgment in part for the defendant,
from which the plaintiff appealed to this court.
Benjamin M. Wattenmaker, with whom, on the brief, was John M.
Wolfson, for the appellant (plaintiff).
W. Gasser, with whom, on the brief, was Margot E. Vanriel,
for the appellee (named defendant).
Prescott, Elgo and Bishop, Js.
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 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 Farm-ington River. The stormwater runoff passes
under the easement area by way of a 24 inch subsurface
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.
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 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 appurtenances thereof . . .
.'' The deed conveying lot 2 to Bahre was recorded on
the land records before the deed conveying lots 1 and 3 to
2005, the plaintiff, at its sole expense, installed and/or
made improvements to the subsurface drainage structures
within the drainage easement area to service its drainage
April 13, 2007, Bahre conveyed lot 2 to the defendant. This
deed also referenced the drainage right-of-way, but provided
that only lot 1 enjoyed that right-of-way along the northerly
line of lot 2. In 2013, the defendant, in developing its
property, connected to the 24 inch pipe to provide additional
drainage from its property.
plaintiff filed this action by way of a seven count
complaint, alleging a quiet title action pursuant to General
Statutes § 47-31, an action for declaratory judgment
pursuant to General Statutes § 52-29, interference with
its easement, trespass, nuisance, unjust enrichment, and
quantum meruit. The crux of the plaintiff's claims is
that it exclusively owns both the right to enjoy the drainage
easement-over lot 2, from both lots 1 and 3-and the 24 inch
concrete pipe that services ...