Thoma v. Watson

Citations

• 228 Conn. App. 537

Syllabus

The plaintiff appealed from the judgment of the trial court for the defendants on the plaintiff's claim of adverse possession. The plaintiff claimed, inter alia, that the trial court improperly raised the issue of permissive use of the disputed property sua sponte despite the defendant W's failure to raise it by way of a special defense. Held: W was not required under the facts of this case to raise permissive use or consent as a special defense, as W's answer denying that the plaintiff's use was hostile and leaving the plaintiff to his proof, together with the fact that the complaint alleged facts suggestive of some cotenancy or familial relationship between the parties, sufficiently put the plaintiff on notice that permissive use, as a matter of law, was a potential issue to overcome. The trial court's sua sponte posttrial inquiry into the issue of permissive use was a proper exercise of judicial discretion. The trial court did not apply an incorrect legal standard when it considered whether the plaintiff had demonstrated that he affirmatively undertook to dispossess, extinguish or steal another's property rights because, in an action in which the plaintiff and W shared some ownership rights in the subject property, the party seeking to establish adverse possession must show that their intent to disseize was clear and unmistakable. The trial court did not erroneously find that the plaintiff failed to prove his case by clear and convincing evidence. The trial court did not improperly fail to comply with the statute (§ 47-31) governing actions to quiet title by not making findings pursuant to § 47-31 (f) regarding the precise nature of the parties' respective interests in the disputed parcel, the court only having been required to affirmatively adjudi- cate the dispute of the parties as it had been presented to the court and on the basis of the evidence presented. Argued May 16—officially released October 8, 2024