Gleason v. Atkins
Citations
- 225 Conn. App. 745
Syllabus
The plaintiffs appealed to this court from the judgment of the trial court rendered for the defendant in the plaintiffs' action to quiet title to a certain strip of land to the south of Lake Waramaug in New Preston and to obtain damages for trespass. The property of the plaintiffs and the property of the defendant were both part of a subdivision of a parcel of land created by way of an approved subdivision map filed in 1969 and subsequently revised in 1970. In 1971, the owners of the subdivided land conveyed Lot 3 as shown on the 1970 subdivision map to P by warranty deed. That deed contained a description of Lot 3, which did not include any frontage on Lake Waramaug. The deed also contained language granting the exclusive right to use, ''in common with owner or owners of Lots 1, 2, 4 and 5 as shown on [the 1970 subdivision map], a certain piece or parcel of land situated on the shore of Lake Waramaug and also shown on said map . . . .'' The grantee and the other owners entitled to use the lakefront premises were required to maintain the premises and to pay their pro-rata share of taxes that accrue on the lakefront premises. V owned a lot immediately adjacent to the easterly boundary of the lakefront premises and, as depicted on the 1970 subdivision map, the southerly boundary of V's lot was the edge of the unpaved portion of West Shore Road. West Shore Road contained a paved way of approximately twenty-five feet in width with unpaved unimproved shoulders approximately 12.5 feet in width on each side of the pavement. The chain of title for Lot 3 and the exclusive right to the use of the lakefront premises ultimately led from P's deed to a warranty deed to the plaintiffs using the same descriptions of both parcels as contained in P's deed. The defendant acquired Lot 10 of the subdivision by warranty deed. Lot 10 was a contiguous parcel encompassing land on either side of West Shore Road, including the lakefront premises and the strip of land abutting the southerly bo
Judges: Bright; Moll; Clark
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
2 cases in this archive cite this case.
Cites
26 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Lake Garda Improvement Assn. v. BattistoniSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1971-03-17· cited 52×
- Il Giardino, LLC v. Belle Haven Land Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut· 2000-09-05· cited 52×
- Koennicke v. MaioranoConnecticut Appellate Court· 1996-09-10· cited 50×
- Eis v. MeyerSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1989-11-21· cited 48×
- Latham v. GarnerIdaho Supreme Court· 1983-12-28· cited 43×
- Raab v. CasperCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1975-10-01· cited 34×
- MacKin v. MacKinSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1982-02-02· cited 33×
- Blackmore v. PowellCalifornia Court of Appeal· 2007-05-22· cited 29×
- Frank Towers Corp. v. LavianaSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1953-06-09· cited 29×
- Faiola v. FaiolaSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1968-01-04· cited 24×
- Chijian Zhang v. Omnipoint Communications Enterprises, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut· 2005-02-01· cited 22×
- Alpha Beta Capital Partners, L.P. v. Pursuit Investment Management, LLCConnecticut Appellate Court· 2019-10-08· cited 20×
- Stefanoni v. DuncanSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2007-06-19· cited 18×
- Redevelopment Agency v. Norwalk Aluminum Foundry CorporationSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1967-07-20· cited 17×
- Eis v. MeyerConnecticut Appellate Court· 1989-03-21· cited 13×
- Mackie v. HullConnecticut Appellate Court· 2002-05-07· cited 13×
- Marshall v. SofferConnecticut Appellate Court· 2000-07-11· cited 10×
- Marchesi v. Bd. of Selectmen of the Town of LymeSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2018-04-24· cited 9×
- Young Men's Christian Ass'n of Meriden v. Zemel Bros.Supreme Court of Connecticut· 1976-07-20· cited 7×
- Mierzejewski v. LaneriSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2011-09-20· cited 7×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.