Camozzi v. Pierce

Citations

• 230 Conn. App. 616

Syllabus

The plaintiff appealed from the trial court's judgment for the defendant on the complaint and on the count of the defendant's counterclaim seeking to quiet title to a certain parcel of real property. A 1951 deed conveyed the entirety of a five acre tract of property, which included the parcel in dispute in the present action, to G. In 1975, G signed a deed as grantor that used the same boundary description as the 1951 deed but included a different acreage call. On appeal, the plaintiff claimed, inter alia, that the court improp- erly found that the 1975 deed conveyed the entirety of the property that had been conveyed by the 1951 deed, including the disputed parcel. Held: The trial court's finding that the 1975 deed did not sever the disputed parcel from the property was not clearly erroneous, as the court, noting that an established rule of deed construction provides that boundary descriptions prevail over acreage calls and that the 1975 deed and the 1951 deed used the same adjoining owner descriptions as the boundaries of the property, properly relied on the adjoining owner descriptions instead of the acreage calls in determining that the disputed parcel was not severed from the prop- erty. The trial court's finding that no evidence other than the acreage call in the 1975 deed indicated that the disputed parcel was severed from the property was not clearly erroneous. Argued November 13, 2024—officially released February 11, 2025