Finkelstein v. 45 Lake Drive, LLC

Citations

• 235 Conn. App. 740

Syllabus

The plaintiff appealed from the trial court's judgment for the defendant on his complaint alleging, inter alia, a prescriptive easement over the defendant's property pursuant to statute (§ 47-37). The plaintiff claimed, inter alia, that the court improperly determined that his use of the defendant's property was not open and visible and continuous and uninterrupted for fifteen years. Held: The trial court's finding that the plaintiff's use of the defendant's property was not open and visible was not clearly erroneous, as the plaintiff presented no evidence that he maintained the area where he crossed the defendant's property and he left no physical conditions to put the prior owner or the defendant on notice of his use, and the prior owner of the defendant's property had no knowledge of the plaintiff's use of the alleged easement until the plaintiff informed him of the use upon the sale of the property to the defendant. The trial court's finding that the plaintiff's use of the defendant's property was not continuous and uninterrupted for fifteen years was not clearly erroneous, as the court discredited the plaintiff's testimony that he biannu- ally crossed the defendant's property to reach the rear of his property for yardwork, and there was ample support in the record for the court's finding that the plaintiff used the defendant's property only sporadically and inter- mittently. The trial court properly determined that the plaintiff failed to establish the boundaries of the alleged prescriptive easement with reasonable certainty, as the plaintiff presented only his own testimony and several exhibits, which the court found to be inadequate. Argued September 4—officially released October 14, 2025