Supronowicz v. Eaton

312 A.3d 100

224 Conn.App. 66

Jacek SUPRONOWICZ et al.

v.Michael EATON et al.

(AC 45508)

Appellate Court of Connecticut.

Argued November 9, 2023

Officially Released March 5, 2024

Ian A. Cole, Derby, for the appellants (plaintiffs).

Arthur C. Zinn, for the appellees (named defendant et al.).

Elgo, Cradle and Westbrook, Js.

WESTBROOK, J.

₆₈In this action to quiet title alleging ownership by adverse possession, the plaintiffs, Jacek Supronowicz and Iwona Supronowicz, appeal from the ₆₉summary judgment rendered by the trial court in favor of the defendants Michael Eaton and Stephanie Hawker.¹ The plaintiffs claim that the court improperly concluded that they could not establish their claim of adverse possession as a matter of law because they (1) failed to demonstrate that privity existed between themselves and their predecessors in title for purposes of tacking periods of possession, (2) acknowledged the defendants’ superior title to the disputed area, and (3) failed to show that their use of the disputed area was exclusive. The plaintiffs assert that genuine issues of material fact remain as to each of these issues and that the court therefore improperly granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. We agree with the plaintiffs as to each of their claims and, for the reasons that follow, reverse the judgment of the trial court.

The following facts, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, and procedural history are relevant to our resolution of this appeal. The parties are the owners of adjoining parcels of land on Fair Oaks Drive in Shelton. The plaintiffs are the record owners of the parcel at 16 Fair Oaks Drive. Jacek Supronowicz acquired title to this property by warranty deed from John Nangle and Melissa Nangle (collectively, Nangles) in 2011.² The plaintiffs claim that they have used a portion of the property located between their home and a creek set inside of a shallow ravine—the disputed area—in various ways since they purchased their property. Following the natural path of the creek, the disputed area extends perpendicular to Fair Oaks Drive for more than two hundred feet.³ It is widest along Fair ₇₀Oaks Drive, extending, at its greatest width, about fifty feet into the defendants’ titled property. Although a small corner of the plaintiffs’ paved driveway lies on the disputed area, it is predominately a grassy side yard populated with trees, shrubs, and a utility pole. The plaintiffs "have used a portion of the [disputed] area as their driveway and have maintain[ed] a lawn, trees, shrubs and a utility pole on the other portions of the [disputed] area." On June 1, 2011, shortly after purchasing their property, the plaintiffs sought permission from the town of Shelton to install drains to divert water from the roof and foundation of their residence to the creek, In connection with the permit application, the plaintiffs sought and received permission from the defendants’ predecessor in title to install the drains in the disputed area.⁴ The plaintiffs’ predecessors in title also used the disputed area in various ways from 1961 to 2011.⁵

The defendants are the record owners of the parcel at 12 Fair Oaks Drive, which is adjacent to the plaintiffs’ ₇₁property. They acquired title to this property by warranty deed on May 15, 2017. Approximately one year after the conveyance, the defendants had the property surveyed, which revealed that the defendants are the record title holders of the disputed area. In the months following the survey, the defendants spoke with one or more of the plaintiffs to request that the plaintiffs not enter the disputed area and to inform the plaintiffs that the defendants were the record title holder of the disputed area. The plaintiffs, however, continued to enter the disputed area until, in August, 2019, the defendants erected an orange plastic fence along the border of the plaintiffs’ property line as reflected in the defendants’ survey.

[1] The plaintiffs filed the underlying action in November, 2019, seeking to quiet title by adverse possession to the disputed area. The plaintiffs allege in their operative complaint⁶ that they and their prede cessors in title have 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 General Statutes § 52-575 (a).⁷ The plaintiffs allege that they and ₇₂their predecessors in title had used a portion of the disputed area continuously as their driveway and had maintained the lawn, trees, shrubs, and a utility pole in the disputed area for more than fifteen years before the defendants put up the fence. The defendants filed an answer denying the essential allegations of the complaint and a counterclaim seeking a declaratory judgment affirming their ownership of the disputed area and quieting title in them.

The defendants subsequently filed a motion seeking summary judgment on the complaint and on their counterclaim and a memorandum of law in support thereof in which they argued that the plaintiffs could not demonstrate that the essential elements of adverse possession were met. The plaintiffs filed an objection to the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, arguing that they and their predecessors in title had continuously and openly possessed the disputed area for more than the requisite fifteen year period.

The trial court, Hon. Irene P. Jacobs, judge trial referee, issued a memorandum of decision on the motion for summary judgment on April 6, 2022. The court held that, although the evidence suggests that both the plaintiffs and their predecessors in title had used the disputed area, the plaintiffs were not in privity with their predecessors in title because the plaintiffs’ predecessors did not expressly convey to them the disputed area ₇₃either orally or by deed and, thus, the plaintiffs could not tack their successive periods of adverse possession for purposes of satisfying the fifteen year statutory period. The court additionally held that "[t]he plaintiffs previously offered to purchase the disputed property from the defendants and therefore have acknowledged the defendants’ superior title."⁸ The court further held that "the evidence shows that the plaintiffs did not exclusively possess the disputed area. Rather, both parties testified to using and maintaining the area." Regarding the defendants’ counterclaim, the court held that the defendants had shown that "they solely possess the disputed area. Accordingly, no genuine issue of material fact exists with respect [to] the defendants’ counterclaim." The court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment.⁹

The plaintiffs subsequently filed a motion for reargument and reconsideration. The plaintiffs argued that ₇₄the court had "erred in concluding that, as a matter of law, the [plaintiffs] could not tack the adverse use by their predecessor[s] in title to their own adverse use to meet the fifteen year limitations period." In support of their argument, the plaintiffs asserted that the intent of their predecessor in title to convey the disputed area "may be implied from the circumstances and need not be express …." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) The court denied the plaintiffs’ motion on May 9, 2022. This appeal followed.

On appeal, the plaintiffs argue that the court improperly concluded as a matter of law that (1) there was no privity between the plaintiffs and their predecessors in title for purposes of tacking periods of possession, (2) no genuine issue of material fact remained regarding whether the plaintiffs admitted superior title in the defendants, and (3) no genuine issue of material fact remained regarding whether the defendants’ repeated entry into the disputed area beginning in July, 2018, defeated the exclusivity of the plaintiffs’ use. The defendants respond that the court properly determined that there were no genuine issues of material fact and that they were entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. For the reasons that follow, we agree with the plaintiffs that the evidence, construed in the manner most favorable to them, supports that there is a genuine issue of material fact as to each of the three claims raised by the plaintiffs.

[2–5] As a preliminary matter, we set forth our standard of review and other relevant legal principles. "Practice Book § 17-49 provides that summary judgment shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, affidavits and any other proof submitted show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. In deciding a motion for summary judgment, the trial court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the ₇₅nonmoving party. … The party moving for summary judgment has the burden of showing the absence of any genuine issue of material fact and that the party is, therefore, entitled to judgment as a matter of law. On appeal, we must determine whether the legal conclusions reached by the trial court are legally and logically correct and whether they find support in the facts set out in the memorandum of decision of the trial court. Our review of the trial court’s decision to grant the defendant’s motion for summary judgment is plenary." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Bellemare v. Wachovia Mortgage Corp., 284 Conn. 193, 198-99, 931 A.2d 916 (2007).

[6–9] "When title is claimed by adverse possession, the burden of proof is on the claimant. … The essential elements of adverse possession are that the owner shall be ousted from possession and kept out uninterruptedly for fifteen years under a claim of right by an open, visible and exclusive possession of the claimant without license or consent of the owner.

The use is not exclusive if the adverse user merely shares dominion over the property with other users. .. Such a possession is not to be made out by inference, but by clear and positive proof." (Internal quotation marks omitted.)...