Caciopoli v. Lebowitz

• Decision Date: 25 June 2013
• Docket Number: No. 18894.,18894.
• Citation: 309 Conn. 62,68 A.3d 1150
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: Dominic CACIOPOLI v. Jeffrey LEBOWITZ.

309 Conn. 62

68 A.3d 1150

Dominic CACIOPOLI

v.Jeffrey LEBOWITZ.

No. 18894.

Supreme Court of Connecticut.

Argued March 14, 2013.

Decided June 25, 2013.

Stuart C. Johnson, New Haven, with whom, on the brief, was Kurtis Z. Piantek, New Haven, for the appellant (defendant).

David S. Doyle, North Branford, for the appellee (plaintiff).

ROGERS, C.J., and PALMER, ZARELLA, EVELEIGH, McDONALD and VERTEFEUILLE, Js.

EVELEIGH, J.

The sole issue in this certified appeal is whether General Statutes § 52–560¹ preempts a common-law cause of action for intentional trespass in situations in which the trespasser has removed trees from another person's land. The defendant, Jeffrey Lebowitz, appeals, following our grant of his petition for certification,² from the judgment of the Appellate Court affirming the judgment rendered by the trial court in favor of the plaintiff, Dominic Caciopoli. Following a bench trial, the trial court found that the defendant had trespassed on the plaintiff's land and removed multiple trees without the plaintiff's permission. The trial court awarded damages to the plaintiff reflecting the diminution in the value of his land as a result of the removal of the trees. On appeal in this court, the defendant claims that § 52–560 provides the exclusive measure of damages in a tree cutting case and, therefore, the Appellate Court improperly determined that § 52–560 does not preempt the common law. In response, the plaintiff claims that the Appellate Court properly concludedthat § 52–560 does not preempt the common law, but instead enhances the common law by providing for treble damages when the reasonable value of the trees as timber is the proper measure of damages. We agree with the plaintiff and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the Appellate Court.

The opinion of the Appellate Court sets forth the following facts and procedural history: “The plaintiff ... purchased real property located at 490 Three Corners Road in Guilford ... in October, 1978. He chose this property because it was isolated and private. The plaintiff's property was surrounded by forest on all sides, except for the area of the lot through which his driveway passed. In May, 2005, the defendant ... purchased property located at 480 Three Corners Road, which is adjacent to the property owned by the plaintiff. The property line between the two homes was unmarked. The plaintiff's home is more than 100 yards from the property line between the two lots, and the plaintiff's view of the home located at 480 Three Corners Road was obstructed.

“In August, 2005, the defendant hired Tanner's Tree Service, LLC [Tanner's Tree Service], to clear standing dead trees from the wooded area between the two homes. The defendant believed these dead trees were on his property because they were in a grassy area located between the two homes that had been maintained by the previous owners of 480 Three Corners Road. The defendant directed Tanner's Tree Service to remove all dead timber, both standing and on the ground, to remove some small saplings, and remove some larger trees to provide more sunlight and enlarge the areas surrounding his house.

“Prior to the commencement of this landscaping work, the defendant failed to determine the actual location of the property line between the two homes. He went to the plaintiff's home to speak with him regarding the property line, but was told to return when the plaintiff was home. He did not consult his warranty deed or documents available at the town hall. The defendant discovered a marker near the plaintiff's mailbox and incorrectly assumed this marked the property line. In actuality, the property line is twenty-five feet from the house. When the plaintiff learned of the removal of the trees, he went to the defendant's home. The defendant understood that the plaintiff was irate and that the plaintiff pointed out the actual property line. The next day, Tanner's Tree Service returned to complete the work on the plaintiff's property. The removal of the trees and brush left the plaintiff with an unobstructed view of the defendant's house.

“On August 30, 2005, the plaintiff sent the defendant a letter, in which he suggested that the plaintiff and the defendant should jointly choose reasonably mature evergreens and have them planted to recapture some of the lost privacy. In November, 2005, the defendant paid a nursery to plant three white pine trees on the plaintiff's property to obscure his view of the defendant's home. These trees did little to create a sense of isolation and privacy that the plaintiff had prior to the defendant's trespass.

“In the spring of 2007, the plaintiff had the property line marked. On May 30, 2007, the defendant sent the plaintiff a letter in which he admitted he was mistaken in assuming the location of the property line. On November 13, 2007, the defendant sent another letter to the plaintiff. In that letter, the defendant admitted that he had trees removed that were partly on the plaintiff's property. In the fall of 2007, the plaintiff undertook an extensive landscaping project in a failed attempt to restore his lost privacy. During that project, the trees purchased by the defendant were moved closer to the plaintiff's house.

“In 2008, the plaintiff commenced an action alleging trespass. The defendant filed an answer with special defenses. The plaintiff later filed an amended complaint adding a count seeking treble damages pursuant to General Statutes § 52–560. Following a trial to the court, the court in its memorandum of decision found that the plaintiff had proven the elements of an intentional trespass action. The court awarded the plaintiff $150,000 for the diminution in the value of his property caused by the defendant's trespass, plus taxable costs.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Caciopoli v. Lebowitz, 131 Conn.App. 306, 308–10, 26 A.3d 136 (2011). The trial court declined to award any damages under § 52–560 for the reasonable value of the trees as timber because the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence regarding the value of the trees.

Thereafter, the defendant appealed from the judgment of the trial court to the Appellate Court, claiming, inter alia,³ that the trial court's award of damages was improper. Specifically, the defendant claimed that § 52–560 limits the scope of damages recoverable in tree cutting cases and that diminution in property value is not an appropriate measure of damages under the statute. The Appellate Court disagreed with the defendant and concluded that § 52–560 does not preempt a common-law cause of action but, rather, provides enhancement of common-law damages by providing for treble damages in circumstances where the reasonable value of the timber is sought. This appeal followed.⁴

On appeal, the defendant claims that the plain language of § 52–560 demonstrates that it provides the exclusive remedy for intentional and unlawful removal of trees from another person's land. Specifically, the defendant contends that the statute applies to “ ‘any’ ” person who impermissibly removes trees and, therefore, the statute is applicable to all such actions. The defendant further contends that, because the statute provides that trespassers who violate the statute “ shall pay [damages] to the party injured,” the damages provided for under the statute are mandatory. (Emphasis in original.) Additionally, although the defendant acknowledges that courts in this state have recognized both a common-law cause of action as well as an action under § 52–560, the defendant contends that, in light of the plain languageof the statute and the history surrounding its enactment, those cases were wrongly decided. Specifically, the defendant claims that, because the enactment of this state's first tree cutting statute in 1726 occurred before a common-law cause of action was recognized in this state, the statute was intended to provide the exclusive remedy for such trespass actions and, therefore, this court should never have recognized additional remedies under the common law.

In response, the plaintiff claims that § 52–560 does not preempt the common law, but rather enhances the common law by providing treble damages in certain situations where the reasonable value of the trees as timber is sought as damages. Thus, the plaintiff claims that parties seeking to recover damages for trespass involving the unlawful removal of timber can pursue either the remedy provided by § 52–560 or common-law damages reflecting the diminution in value of his land. The plaintiff therefore contends that he properly brought his claim under the common law and was, therefore, entitled to seek damages reflecting the diminution in the value of his property as a result of the unlawful removal of the trees. We agree with the plaintiff.

The issue in this case presents a question of statutory interpretation that requires our plenary review. See Cogan v. Chase Manhattan Auto Financial Corp., 276 Conn. 1, 7, 882 A.2d 597 (2005). “When construing a statute, [o]ur fundamental objective is to ascertain and give effect to the apparent intent of the legislature.... In other words, we seek to determine, in a reasoned manner, the meaning of the statutory language as applied to the facts of [the] case, including the question of whether the language actually does apply.... In seeking to determine that meaning, General Statutes § 1–2z directs us first to consider the text of the statute itself and its relationship to other statutes. If, after examining such text and considering such relationship, the meaning of such text is plain and unambiguous and does not yield absurd or unworkable results, extratextual evidence of the meaning of the statute shall not be considered.... When a statute is not plain and unambiguous, we also look for interpretive guidance to the legislative history and circumstances surrounding its enactment, to the legislative policy it was designed to implement, and to its...