Beneduci v. Valadares
Citation | 812 A.2d 41,73 Conn. App. 795 |
Decision Date | 03 December 2002 |
Docket Number | (AC 21950) |
Court | Appellate Court of Connecticut |
Parties | JOSEPH BENEDUCI v. CANDIDO A. VALADARES. |
Foti, Dranginis and Flynn, Js. William J. Ingersoll, for the appellant (plaintiff).
David Fite Waters, for the appellee (defendant).
The plaintiff, Joseph Beneduci, is the owner of property adjoining land of the defendant, Candido A. Valadares. A dispute arose between the parties regarding a common driveway, which passes over land owned by the plaintiff. The parties presented evidence to an attorney trial referee (referee) regarding the plaintiff's claims for injunctive relief and damages and the defendant's counterclaim for damages.1 To determine the issues underlying this dispute, the referee was required to determine the extent of the defendant's rights to use the right-of-way. The referee issued a report as to his findings and legal conclusions. Thereafter, the trial court rendered judgment on the referee's report. In doing so, that court, inter alia, enjoined the defendant "from engaging in any activity on the large right-of-way beyond using it for ingress and egress to his property and ... from ... interfering with any activity of the plaintiff on the large right-of-way which does not affect the defendant's use of the driveway for ingress and egress to his property." The court further enjoined the defendant "from using the easterly portion of the small right-of-way and from interfering with [the] plaintiff's sign." The plaintiff challenges four aspects of the judgment on the referee's report: (1) the creation of a passing area in the right-of-way; (2) the authorization to the defendant to make certain improvements to the right-of-way; (3) the restriction on the plaintiff from removing vegetation near the right-of-way; and (4) the allocation of maintenance costs of the right-of-way. We affirm, in part, and reverse, in part, the judgment of the trial court.
The following facts, as set forth in the referee's report, are relevant to our resolution of the plaintiff's appeal. "Sometime prior to 1946, a right-of-way was created over certain property located on Styles Lane in Norwalk, Connecticut (hereinafter the large right-of-way). That right-of-way is approximately 800 feet long, about twenty-four feet wide, and partially fronts on Styles Lane, a public thoroughfare. The large right-of-way was the only means of ingress and egress to a parcel of land of approximately four acres (the original parcel). In 1946, the original parcel was divided. In that year, a map was prepared by Samuel [W.] Hoyt, Jr. Co., Inc., entitled `Map of Property Prepared for [Hermine] Peterson at Norwalk, Conn.' That map ... is filed with the Norwalk land records as Map No. 2350. The map reflects that the original parcel had been divided into (a) a one acre parcel with a residence which became 6 Styles Lane and was ultimately purchased by the defendant in 1995; and (b) an undeveloped three acre parcel which the plaintiff subsequently purchased, and which became 10 Styles Lane.
The plaintiff commenced the present action against the defendant and requested that the court, inter alia, enjoin the defendant from performing any act utilizing the right-of-way2 for any purpose other than ingress and egress. The defendant's counterclaim contained no particular claims for relief. The matter was submitted to a referee who, after hearing the evidence and viewing the disputed property, found the facts previously set forth and reached certain conclusions of law. The court rendered judgment in accordance with the referee's report, from which the plaintiff appeals. The defendant did not cross appeal.
We begin our analysis of the plaintiff's claims by setting forth our standard of review. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Smith v. Muellner
...who is the owner of a right-of-way over lands of another to keep it in repair, to protect and maintain it"); Beneduci v. Valadares, 73 Conn.App. 795, 804-805, 812 A.2d 41(2002) (court properly authorized dominant owner to grade, put gravel on right-of-way); see also 1 Restatement (Third), s......
-
Buck Mountain Owners' Ass'n, Nonprofit Corp. v. Prestwich
...of its equity power to impose reasonable road maintenance obligations where no agreement exists.15For example, in Beneduci v. Valadares, 73 Conn.App. 795, 812 A.2d 41 (2002), the court affirmed an order requiring users of a shared driveway to split routine maintenance costs. Relying on the ......
-
Lewis v. CHELSEA GCA REALTY
...be raised by any of the parties, or by the court sua sponte, at any time." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Beneduci v. Valadares, 73 Conn.App. 795, 805, 812 A.2d 41 (2002). Federal preemption implicates the court's subject matter jurisdiction. See Cox Cable Advisory Council v. Dept. of ......
-
Statewide Grievance Committee v. Burton
...7. Subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time by any party or sua sponte by the court. See Beneduci v. Valadares, 73 Conn.App. 795, 805, 812 A.2d 41 (2002). 8. We are troubled by footnote 2 of the dissenting opinion, which states specifically "when an attorney's disciplinary hist......