Arcari v. Dellaripa

Citation325 A.2d 280,164 Conn. 532
CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut
Decision Date21 March 1973
PartiesFrank ARCARI (Catherine M. Arcari, Executrix, Substituted Plaintiff) v. Michael DELLARIPA, Sr.

Arnold E. Buchman, Hartford, for appellant (plaintiff).

Michael E. Grossmann, Hartford, for appellee (defendant).

Before HOUSE, C.J., and SHAPIRO, LOISELLE, MacDONALD and BOGDANSKI, JJ.

SHAPIRO, Associate Justice.

The plaintiff executrix' decedent, Frank Arcari, and the defendant were owners of adjoining land situated on the northerly side of Darcy Street in West Hartford. A dispute arose between them as to the location of their mutual boundary line. As the result of an action brought by Frank Arcari to the Court of Common Pleas, the court determined the issue of adverse possession in favor of the defendant. The plaintiff executrix, who had been substituted as plaintiff on the death of Frank Arcari, appealed from the judgment rendered.

The amended complaint alleged that Frank Arcari was the owner of realty known as 24-26 Darcy Street and that the defendant was the owner of realty known as 20 Darcy Street, which premises abut the easterly line of the Arcari premises. The complaint further alleged that Frank Arcari acquired title to 24-26 Darcy Street by deed recorded on May 15, 1935; that under claim of his title he 'has maintained open visibe and exclusive possession of the easterly line of his premises which line includes into . . . (his) premises certain plantings, trees, swing sets, clothes lines and fences'; that such 'open visible and notorious use was commenced by . . . (his) predecessors in title and has continued uninterruptedly for more than thirty years up to the present time'; that he made various uses of the land 'and in all ways and manners has held and used said property as his own'; and that the defendant 'claims estates or interests in said land or parts thereof which are adverse to the title and/or interest of the plaintiff.' Frank Arcari claimed injunctive relief in connection with the use of the portion of land claimed by him, damages and a judgment determining the rights in and to the disputed portion of land. The defendant's answer denied all claims to adverse possession.

The plaintiff has assigned error in the failure of the court to find forty-three paragraphs of her draft finding which she claims ar admitted or undisputed. As a result of her motion to rectify the appeal, three of those paragraphs were included in the court's finding. Of the remaining forty paragraphs, twenty-five are pursued in the plaintiff's brief. This constitutes a wholesale attack on the finding; our repeated strictures against such a practice again go unheeded. See Shoemaker v. Zoning Commission, 164 Conn. 210, 319 A.2d 401; Hyatt v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 163 Conn. 379, 381, 311 A.2d 77; Charter Oak Estates, Inc. v. Kearney, 160 Conn. 522, 525, 280 A.2d 885; State v. Dukes, 157 Conn. 498, 499, 255 A.2d 614. To secure an addition on the ground claimed, the plaintiff must point to some part of the appendix, the pleadings or an exhibit properly before us which discloses the defendant's admission that the fact in question was true or that its truth was conceded to be undisputed. LaReau v. Warden, 161 Conn. 303, 304, 288 A.2d 54; Barnini v. Sun Oil Co., 161 Conn. 59, 60, 283 A.2d 217; Martin v. Kavanewsky, 157 Conn. 514, 515, 255 A.2d 619; Maltbie, Conn.App.Proc. § 158. Most of the additions sought are in dispute. The others are implicit in the finding or involve facts which are immaterial to our disposition of the appeal.

The plaintiff assigns error in the court's finding of certain facts as being without support in the evidence or containing language of doubtful meaning. An examination of the findings attacked by the plaintiff discloses that each one is supported by the evidence as printed in the appendix to the defendant's brief.

The court found the following facts: Frank Arcari acquired title to the property known as 24-26 Darcy Street in the town of West Hartford from his mother's estate in 1934. At that time, and until 1965, the neighboring parcel on the east, 20 Darcy Street, was owned and occupied by Barney Desiderio, a predecessor in title of the defendant. The Arcari and Desiderio families had been on friendly terms. No artificial barriers existed between the two properties, but two iron pipes were set in the ground in the westerly corners of the parcel now owned by the defendant. The defendant's father, Donato Dellaripa, took title to the Desiderio property by an executor's deed in 1966, and he in turn conveyed title by quitclaim deed to the defendant in 1967. In June, 1969, the defendant erected a chain link fence about six inches to the east of the line marked by the two iron pipes in the western corners of 20 Darcy Street. The property in dispute is a triangular area lying east of the fence and having the chain link fence as its base. Within the triangle stands a lilac bush and firtrees planted by Mrs. Arcari in 1955 as well as the most westerly clothesline pole, a swing set and a bare...

To continue reading

Request your trial
20 cases
  • A-G Foods, Inc. v. Pepperidge Farm, Inc., A-G
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • 7 August 1990
    ...trial court on one theory and then ask a reversal in the supreme court on another.' Maltbie, Conn.App.Proc. § 305; Arcari v. Dellaripa, 164 Conn. 532, 537, 325 A.2d 280 [1973]; and a party is not entitled to raise issues on appeal which have not been raised in the trial court. Zeller v. Kug......
  • DeVita v. Esposito, 5651
    • United States
    • Appellate Court of Connecticut
    • 29 December 1987
    ...title since it found that the defendant had acquired title by adverse possession." Id., at 488, 473 A.2d 325, citing Arcari v. Dellaripa, 164 Conn. 532, 325 A.2d 280 (1973). The trial court must first determine in which party record title lies, and then, if necessary, determine whether adve......
  • Saphir v. Neustadt
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • 3 April 1979
    ...paragraph of their draft finding; such a broadside attack has been unfailingly discountenanced by this court. Arcari v. Dellaripa, 164 Conn. 532, 534, 325 A.2d 280 (1973). Some of the paragraphs alleged not to be found by the court are implicit in the finding as made. Those portions of the ......
  • 1525 Highland Associates, LLC v. Fohl, (AC 19990)
    • United States
    • Appellate Court of Connecticut
    • 10 April 2001
    ...... Whitney v. Tunnel, 180 Conn. 147, 148, 429 A.2d 826 (1980) ; Ruick v. Twarkins, 171 Conn. 149, 155, 367 A.2d 1380 (1976) ; Arcari v. Dellaripa, 164 Conn. 532, 536, 325 A.2d 280 (1973) ; Clark v. Drska, [1 Conn. App. 62 Conn. App. 623 481, 485, 473 A.2d 325 (1984)]." ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT