Leb. Historical Soc'y, Inc. v. Attorney Gen. of State

209 Conn.App. 337

268 A.3d 734

LEBANON HISTORICAL SOCIETY, INC.

v.ATTORNEY GENERAL OF the STATE of Connecticut et al.

AC 43912

Appellate Court of Connecticut.

Argued October 4, 2021

Officially released December 21, 2021

Leslie P. King, Hartford, with whom were Sara C. Bronin, and, on the brief, Dean A. Morande, pro hac vice, for the appellant (plaintiff).

Alayna M. Stone, assistant attorney general, with whom were Caitlin M.E. Calder, assistant attorney general, and, on the brief, William Tong, attorney general, Clare Kindall, solicitor general, and Karen Gano and Jane Rosenberg, assistant attorneys general, for the appellee (named defendant).

Mary Mintel Miller, Hartford, with whom was Jeffrey N. Kaplan, for the appellee (defendant First Congregational Church of Lebanon).

Jeffrey Gentes filed a brief on behalf of the appellees (defendant Nancy Gentes et al.).

Bright, C.J., and Alvord and Harper, Js.

BRIGHT, C.J.

In this action to quiet title to, and to impose conservation and preservation restrictions on, property in the town of Lebanon (town), the plaintiff, Lebanon Historical Society, Inc., appeals from the judgment of the trial court granting the motion to dismiss filed by the defendant First Congregational Church of Lebanon (church), on the ground that the plaintiff lacks standing to bring the action.¹ On appeal, the plaintiff contends that the court erred when it concluded that the plaintiff lacked standing to bring a quiet title action on the portion of the Lebanon Town Green (Green), where the church is located (Church Parcel). We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The following facts and procedural history are relevant to our resolution of this appeal. The Green is the largest town green in Connecticut and an important historic resource for the town. In 1692, the property that now makes up the town, including the Green, was conveyed in fee by Oweneco, Sachem of the Mohegan Tribe of Indians, to the four original proprietors of the town. In 1705, that conveyance was extended to additional proprietors, together with their heirs and assignees. Those proprietors were the last known owners of the Green, and, through the passage of time and the impossibility of identifying the proprietors' heirs and assignees, the Green was left to public use.

The plaintiff is a membership based § 501 (c) (3)² nonstock, tax-exempt corporation that preserves and interprets the history of the town, including the Green. Specifically, the plaintiff educates the public about the town's history, creates and commissions historical events about the town, organizes and sponsors events on the Green, publishes books and pamphlets, and owns and operates several buildings located adjacent to the Green.

In 2017, the town decided to expand its public library, part of which is located on the Green. In order to obtain state funding for the project, the town was required to demonstrate that it held legal title to that property (Library Parcel). After running a title search for that property, however, the town learned that there was no known owner of either the Library Parcel or the Green as a whole. Instead, the Green had been dedicated to public use since the early 1700s.

After learning that it did not own the Library Parcel, in January, 2018, the town brought an action to quiet title to that parcel, as well as to the part of the Green where the town hall is located (Town Hall Parcel).³ The plaintiff filed a counterclaim in that action, asking the court to impose conservation and preservation restrictions on both parcels.⁴ In March, 2019, the court rendered a judgment by stipulation in the town's quiet title action, quieting title to both the Library and Town Hall Parcels in the town, and imposing conservation and preservation restrictions on both parcels, as the plaintiff had requested in its counterclaim. Those restrictions are currently held by the plaintiff.

While the town's quiet title action was pending, in February, 2019, the plaintiff commenced the underlying action, which sought to quiet title to the three remaining sections of the Green: (1) the northernmost part of the Green, sometimes referred to as the Common (Northern Parcel); (2) parts of the Green that are adjacent to privately owned property (Neighbor Parcel); and (3) the Church Parcel. With respect to the Northern Parcel, the plaintiff sought to quiet title in the town. With respect to the Neighbor Parcel, the plaintiff sought to quiet title in the individuals who own properties that are adjacent to the Green. With respect to the Church Parcel, the plaintiff sought to quiet title in the church. Most importantly, the plaintiff also asked that conservation and preservation restrictions be imposed in its favor on each of the three parcels. Through these restrictions, the plaintiff sought to ensure that the parcels would always remain dedicated to a public purpose and that reasonable controls would be placed on the demolition, alteration, and construction of buildings and other improvements on the property, so as to maintain the historic use and character of the Green.

Thereafter, the plaintiff reached stipulated agreements with the town and almost all of the individuals who own properties adjacent to the Green concerning the imposition of conservation and preservation restrictions on the Northern Parcel and the Neighbor Parcel. The stipulation resolved all of the plaintiff's requests for conservation and preservation restrictions on the Green, except with respect to the Church Parcel and the property of the defendants Robert M. Gentes and Nancy W. Gentes (collectively, Gentes). Consequently, the plaintiff then filed an amended complaint seeking only to quiet title to, and the imposition of conservation and preservation restrictions on, the Church Parcel and withdrew its complaint as to the Gentes.⁵

In March, 2019, before the plaintiff filed its amended complaint, the church filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's quiet title action, claiming that the plaintiff lacked standing to bring the action because it claimed no title or interest in the Church Parcel, as required by General Statutes § 47-31 (a).⁶ The plaintiff opposed the church's motion, arguing that it had standing because (1) the conservation and preservation restrictions that it seeks to impose are " ‘interests in land,’ " (2) the plaintiff holds conservation and preservation restrictions on parts of the Green that are adjacent to the Church Parcel, and (3) the plaintiff's extensive involvement with preserving the Green provides it with an additional interest sufficient to convey standing. Later that year, the plaintiff filed another memorandum opposing the church's motion to dismiss, in which it explained that, as a result of separate litigation, it held conservation and preservation restrictions on approximately 95 percent of the Green, a development that it claimed strengthened its standing to bring the underlying action.⁷

In December, 2019, the trial court, Calmar, J. , granted the church's motion to dismiss. The court concluded that the plaintiff lacked standing to bring a quiet title action against the church because it did not hold any conservation or preservation restrictions on the Church Parcel, meaning that the plaintiff did not have an actual interest in the property, as required by § 47-31 (a). The plaintiff and the attorney general both filed motions to reargue/reconsider, asserting that the court erred in overlooking the public use character of the Church Parcel and the plaintiff's stated mission to protect the public character of the Green. The trial court denied both motions, and the plaintiff appealed.

While the plaintiff's quiet title action was pending, the church filed its own action to quiet title in the Church Parcel. The town then filed a counterclaim in which it sought the "imposition of conservation and preservation restrictions on [the Church Parcel] ... which ensure that the [Church Parcel] shall be dedicated to a public purpose in perpetuity and which place reasonable controls on improvements." In its answer to the town's counterclaim, the church agreed to the proposed restrictions. Thereafter, the church filed a motion for judgment seeking to quiet title to the Church Parcel in the church, subject to the conservation and preservation restrictions requested by the town. In November, 2020, however, the plaintiff moved to intervene as a defendant in the church's quiet title action and filed a counterclaim seeking additional conservation and preservation restrictions that were not included in the restrictions sought in the town's counterclaim and agreed to by the church.⁸ The plaintiff's motion to intervene in that action was granted by the court. In December, 2020, given the present appeal and its likely effect on the church's quiet title action, the church moved to stay that action, and the court granted its motion.

On appeal from the court's judgment granting the church's motion to dismiss in the present case, the plaintiff and the attorney general⁹ contend that the plaintiff has standing to bring an action to quiet title to the Church Parcel because (1) the plaintiff has an interest in the parcel, given its dedication to preserving the history and character of the Green, of which the Church Parcel is a part, (2) the plaintiff is the holder of conservation and preservation restrictions on the remaining 95 percent of the Green, and the Green is a contiguous and indivisible whole, and (3) if the plaintiff does not have standing to bring this action, no one will ever have standing to seek the imposition of conservation and preservation restrictions on the parcel. The plaintiff also contends that it has standing because (1) to hold that it lacks standing in the present case would contradict the court's judgment in the town's first quiet title action, and (2) the general presumption in favor of concluding that subject matter jurisdiction exists should apply. We are not persuaded by any of...