Opinion
No. CV 06-5001064
November 15, 2007
Memorandum of Decision
This is a boundary dispute between neighbors living in the town of Plainfield, Connecticut that has culminated in this action to quiet title filed by the plaintiffs.
This matter came on for trial before this Court on November 9, 2007 at which time testimony was received from Mr. Richard Meehan, a Surveyor; the plaintiffs, Paul and Michelle Young; the defendant Cynthia Harnage; a former neighbor of the parties, Ms. Giselle Ward; the former owner of the property now belonging to the plaintiffs, Ms. Carol Aforismo; and a Plainfield police officer, Officer Frederick Whitlock. In addition, the Court received several pieces of documentary evidence, including the deeds and maps prepared for this litigation.
The Court has reviewed all of the testimony and documentary evidence and makes the following findings of fact.
Findings of Fact
1. On May 16, 2003, James and Cynthia Harnage purchased a home and a parcel of land known as 24 Goshen Road in the town of Plainfield, Connecticut. This purchase is memorialized by a deed running from Leslie M. Taylor to the Harnages and recorded in the land records of the town of Plainfield at Volume 303, page 327.
2. On November 29, 2005, Paul A. Young and Michelle C. Oates purchased a home and a parcel of land known as 12 Goshen Road in the town of Plainfield, Connecticut. This Purchase is memorialized by a deed running from Carol Aforismo and Manuel Parreira to the Youngs and recorded in the land records of the town of Plainfield at Volume 354, page 1147.
At the time of the purchase, Mr. Young and Ms. Oates were engaged to be married; they have since been married and Michelle Oates is now known as Michelle Young.
3. These two properties share a common boundary, on the westerly side of the Young property and the easterly side of the Harnage property.
4. As per the deeds, the land area for the Harnage property is 41,198 sq. feet (approximately 1.02995 acre) and the Young property is 41,200 sq. feet (approximately 1.03 acre).
5. These two parcels were at one time part of a larger parcel of land that was owned by a Mr. Reginald F. Gagnon as memorialized by a deed dated January 23, 1985 and recorded at Volume 155, page 1134 of the town of Plainfield land records.
6. On July 17, 1995, Mr. Gagnon partitioned this larger parcel by splitting off the first parcel in a deed recorded at Volume 228, page 689 of the town of Plainfield land records. This ultimately became the Harnage property.
7. The remaining part of the original parcel ultimately became the Young property.
8. Both parties agree that the deeds are accurate and reflect the proper boundary between the properties.
9. Additional facts shall be discussed as necessary.
Discussion of Law
Despite the best efforts of the defendants to complicate this matter, it is and remains a simple case. There is no dispute as to the descriptions of the respective properties in the deeds and there has been no dispute as to the property lines drawn on the survey prepared by Mr. Meehan, admitted into evidence, without objection, as Plaintiff's Exhibit 11. There is, therefore, no credible evidence in front of this Court that would lead it to conclude that the deeds are anything but accurate and that Exhibit 11 correctly reflects the boundary lines as set forth in the deeds.
Indeed, in the Answer, the defendants admit the truth of both deeds and their property descriptions. Both deeds clearly and accurately reflect the common boundary as being correct.
To be sure, the defendants have claimed that they believed that they owned a significant portion of the land that is included within the plaintiffs' property. This belief, while clearly mistaken when one examines the appropriate deeds, is not without some basis. There is a tree line that would appear to form what could be described as a natural boundary. Notwithstanding, despite the appearance of this tree line as a boundary, it is indisputably not the true boundary and, in fact, sits well within the Young property. It is clear that the defendants did exercise some dominion over the disputed property by mowing the lawn and clearing debris, nevertheless, this is insufficient to give the defendants any viable claim of ownership as to the disputed property.
There is, of course, no landmark at the actual boundary that one could use to delineate these properties, thus putting one in mind of the 1917 Robert Frost poem, Mending Wall, in which his neighbor is to have said "Good fences make good neighbors."
The defendants have raised numerous special defenses and counterclaims, the vast majority of which have failed for a complete lack of proof. There are two claims for which there was some evidence, although clearly insufficient evidence to prevail: specifically, the claim of ownership by adverse possession and a claim of unjust enrichment. The claim of adverse possession fails for an elemental reason. It is well established in this state that to acquire the title to land by adverse possession, the claimant must establish by clear and convincing evidence that there was "actual, open, notorious, hostile, continuous and exclusive possession for the full statutory period." (Emphasis added.) Rudder v. Manasco Lake Park Association, 93 Conn.App. 759 (2006). The statutory period is fifteen years as per CGS § 52-575.
See Allen v. Johnson, 79 Conn.App. 740 (2003).
The parcels were subdivided from a single parcel on July 17, 1995. Thus, the earliest date upon which any claim of adverse possession could possibly lie would be July 16, 2010. Since it is at least two and a half years before that date, there is no way that a claim of ownership by adverse possession can succeed even if all of the other required elements were proven. Consequently, this Court need look no further to find for the Youngs on the defendant's claim of adverse possession.
Insofar as the claim of unjust enrichment, while there was some evidence presented to the Court to establish that the Harnages had done some work on the disputed land, there was no evidence presented as to when this work was done. The plaintiffs have not even owned the land but since 2005. Any claim for reimbursement by the defendants would therefore be misdirected if sought from the Youngs. Moreover, there has been no clear evidence of the amount of work done, the monetary expenditures, if any. So, while a claim of reimbursement might have been proper if established by credible evidence, the defendants have completely failed in that regard. The Court finds no merit to any of the special defenses or counterclaims.
Accordingly, Judgment to Quiet Title is Granted. The Plaintiff is directed to prepare a Judgment file and to incorporate Plaintiff's Exhibit 11 for filing in the Town of Plainfield's Land Records. Each Party shall bear their own costs.
CT Page 19790