Metroplitan District v. Mott

Syllabus

The defendants appealed from the trial court's judgment rendered on their counterclaim seeking a declaratory judgment and to quiet title with respect to the plaintiff's express easement encumbering their property. The defendants claimed, inter alia, that the court improperly rendered judgment for the plaintiff on their quiet title claim. Held: This court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to review portions of the defen- dants' claim that the declarations issued by the trial court in adjudicating the counterclaim were improper, as the defendants failed to demonstrate that they were aggrieved by two of the declarations at issue, which mirrored or substantively tracked the language of the defendants' requested declara- tions. The trial court's final declaration at issue was not improper, as the defendants misconstrued the scope of the court's declaration regarding the plaintiff's acquiescence to the defendants' encroachment in the easement area by their installation of a driveway and utilities. The trial court did not improperly fail to address certain issues in adjudicat- ing the counterclaim, as the court resolved one issue, there was no reason for the court to address a second issue, and the defendants abandoned their claim regarding a third issue by failing to brief it adequately. The trial court improperly rendered judgment for the plaintiff on count two of the defendants' counterclaim seeking to quiet title, as, although the court deemed the lack of a dispute between the parties regarding ownership of the property, subject to the easement, to be dispositive, disputes arising as to an express easement when title to the encumbered property is not in question may be resolved pursuant to statute (§ 47-31), and, therefore, the court should have rendered judgment for the defendants to the extent that the court granted the defendants' requested relief. This court declined to review the defendants' claim that the trial court improperly admitted irrelevant evidence at tr