Opinion
(4020)
Argued February 5, 1986 —
Decision released April 8, 1986
Action to enjoin the defendants from trespassing on certain of the plaintiffs' property, and for other relief, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Hartford-New Britain at Hartford, where the defendants' filed a counterclaim alleging title by adverse possession, and tried to the court, Shaughnessy, J.; judgment for the plaintiffs on the complaint and on the counterclaim, from which the defendants appealed to this court. No error.
The appellants filed a motion for reargument which was denied.
Robert F. Stengel, for the appellants (defendants).
M. Jane Christensen, for the appellees (plaintiffs).
This case involves the ownership of and the right to use that part of a driveway, leading to the defendants' house, which runs across the land of the plaintiffs. When the defendants sought to pave the part of the driveway which is on the plaintiffs' property, the plaintiffs sued them for damages for trespass and sought an injunction. The defendants claimed ownership of that part of the driveway by adverse possession, and an easement by prescription. The trial court filed a thoughtful and complete memorandum of decision, finding all the critical factual issues in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendants. On appeal, the defendants raise sixteen claims of error, none of which has merit. Fourteen attack the findings of the trial court, which our review of the record indicates are not clearly erroneous. Another claims that the court employed the wrong burden of proof on the adverse possession issue; the memorandum of decision clearly belies this claim. The final claim is that the court erred in declining to view the premises. Such a decision rests in the sound discretion of the trial court; Decko v. Wood, 6 Conn. App. 95, 96, 503 A.2d 185 (1986); which the defendants have not shown was abused.