Skip to main content
· 3/5/2024

Supronowicz v. Eaton

Citations

  • 224 Conn. App. 66

Syllabus

The plaintiffs sought to quiet title by adverse possession to certain of the defendants' property that was adjacent to their own. The plaintiffs acquired title to their property in 2011 and claimed that they had used a portion of the defendants' property, which was located between the plaintiffs' home and a creek set inside of a shallow ravine, in various ways since that time. The plaintiffs also asserted that their predecessors in title had used the disputed area continuously from 1961 to 2011. The disputed area consisted predominantly of a grassy side yard, which the plaintiffs maintained, and included a small corner of the plaintiffs' paved driveway. Shortly after purchasing their property, the plaintiffs sought and received permission from the defendants' predecessor in title to install drains in the disputed area to divert water from the roof and foundation of their residence into the creek. The defendants purchased their property in 2017. Approximately one year later, they had the prop- erty surveyed and determined that they were the record title holders of the disputed area. Thereafter, the defendants began to use and main- tain the disputed area and asked the plaintiffs to stop entering it. The plaintiffs ignored the defendants' request and continued to use the dis- puted area until 2019, when the defendants erected a plastic fence along the border of their property as it was reflected in the survey. The plaintiffs commenced the underlying action, alleging that they and their predecessors in title had been in open, exclusive, hostile, adverse and actual possession under a claim of right of the disputed area for more than fifteen years, as required by the applicable statute (§ 52-575 (a)). The defendants filed a counterclaim seeking a declaratory judgment affirming their ownership of the disputed area and to quiet title. There- after, the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiffs could not demonstrate that the essential eleme

Judges: Elgo; Cradle; Westbrook

Read full opinion on CourtListener

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.