Ringel v. Gottlieb

Citations

• 233 Conn. App. 798

Syllabus

The plaintiff property owners appealed from the trial court's judgment defin- ing the scope and location of an easement that granted the abutting defendant property owner right-of-way access across the plaintiffs' property to the beach and waters of Long Island Sound. The plaintiffs claim, inter alia, that the court improperly concluded that the warranty deed at issue clearly and unambiguously reserved a general beach easement for the defendant's use of the plaintiffs' property above the mean high water line. Held: The trial court erred in concluding that the easement language in the war- ranty deed was clear and unambiguous, as the definition of ''beach'' in our case law is not consistent and both parties' interpretations of the term ''beach'' were reasonable, and, therefore, the language in the deed was ambiguous as to the easement's location and scope. The trial court erred in making findings on the basis of claims that the defendant had withdrawn prior to trial, as the language of the parties' stipulation clearly expressed an intent to abandon their respective claims that the other party engaged in conduct that exceeded the scope of the easement or impeded the defendant's use of the easement, leaving only the scope and location of the easement as the sole issue to be adjudicated, and it was improper for the court to have ruled on issues beyond that. Argued January 7—officially released July 22, 2025