Lakeview Associates v. Woodlake Master Condominium Ass'n, Inc.

• Decision Date: 21 January 1997
• Docket Number: Nos. 15458,15460,s. 15458
• Citation: 239 Conn. 769,687 A.2d 1270
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: LAKEVIEW ASSOCIATES v. WOODLAKE MASTER CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC.

Page 1270

687 A.2d 1270

239 Conn. 769

LAKEVIEW ASSOCIATES v. WOODLAKE MASTER CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC.

Nos. 15458, 15460.

Supreme Court of Connecticut.

Argued Nov. 6, 1996.

Decided Jan. 21, 1997.

[239 Conn. 770] William R. Breetz, with whom was Brendan T. Flynn, Hartford, for appellant in Docket No. 15458, appellee-appellant in Docket No. 15460 (defendant).

Robert E. Wright, Hartford, for appellee in Docket No. 15458, appellant-appellee in Docket No. 15460 (plaintiff).

CALLAHAN, C.J., and NORCOTT, KATZ, PALMER and PETERS, JJ.

OPINION

PALMER, Justice.

This case requires us to decide whether the trial court properly concluded that the defendant, Woodlake Master Condominium Association, Inc., must pay for repairs to a private road in Woodbury owned by the plaintiff, Lakeview Associates, under the terms of a conveyance that granted to the defendant an easement over the road. The defendant has appealed from the judgment of the trial court directing it to pay the plaintiff a sum not to exceed $298,400 for repairs to the road. The plaintiff has appealed from the judgment of the trial court awarding it offer of judgment interest under General Statutes (Rev. to 1993) § 52-192a, ¹ claiming that the trial court failed to award such interest retroactive to the date of the complaint. The defendant has cross appealed, claiming that the plaintiff is not entitled to any prejudgment interest under § 52-192a. ² We conclude that the trial court properly required the defendant to pay for the repairs to the private road, but that the plaintiff is not entitled to any offer of judgment interest under § 52-192a.

The following facts are undisputed. The plaintiff is a general partnership that owns seventy-nine acres of undeveloped property in Woodbury and Southbury. Approximately sixty-three acres of that property are located in Woodbury and border on a private road known as Woodlake Road. The defendant is a condominium association, comprised of 400 units and approximately 1100 residents, whose property abuts the plaintiff's property along Woodlake Road. ³ Woodlake Road, which is 6400 feet long, provides the only means of ingress and egress to the parties' properties.

Originally, both properties were owned by Joseph R. Pepe. In January, 1972, Pepe conveyed what is now the defendant's property to Woodbury Village, Inc. (Woodbury Village), a joint venture that developed the defendant's condominium complex and that eventually transferred control of the complex to the defendant. Pepe retained ownership of Woodlake Road for himself and his beneficiaries, but granted an easement over the roadway to Woodbury Village and its heirs, successors and assigns. ⁴ In October, 1972, Pepe recorded a modified easement that provided in relevant part: "The above granted easement shall continue in full force and effect unless and until the herein described premises shall be dedicated as a public highway and accepted by the Town of Woodbury, at which time this easement shall cease and be of no further force and effect. Provided, however, that by the acceptance hereof, Woodbury Village, Incorporated, its successors and assigns covenant and agree that they will contribute, pro rata to maintain and keep in good repair the road described herein until acceptance thereof by such Town of Woodbury." ⁵

The plaintiff purchased the balance of Pepe's property in 1988. Because Pepe had retained ownership of Woodlake Road for himself and his beneficiaries, the plaintiff, as Pepe's successor in title, now owns the road. The defendant has always repaired and maintained the road without any contribution from the plaintiff. ⁶

In 1990, the plaintiff requested that the town of Woodbury accept Woodlake Road as a public highway. ⁷ In response to the plaintiff's request, the town commissioned a study of Woodlake Road, which stated that the road was generally in poor condition and in need of repair. Upon learning of the results of the study, the plaintiff demanded that the defendant make the necessary repairs or that it otherwise assist the plaintiff in having the road accepted as a public highway by the town. ⁸ When the defendant failed to cooperate, the plaintiff instituted this action seeking injunctive relief and damages. ⁹ On July 16, 1993, the plaintiff filed an offer of judgment under § 52-192a in the amount of $175,000. The defendant failed to accept the plaintiff's offer of judgment, and the case proceeded to a court trial.

At the conclusion of the trial, the court determined that, under the terms of the easement, "the plaintiff and [the] defendant are responsible for their pro rata share of all repair and maintenance expenses [required for the upkeep of] Woodlake Road.... [T]he pro rata share of each is determined by the number of dwelling units legally using said road. Since there are no such units on the plaintiff's property using said road, and there are 400 condominium units of the defendant using the road, then those 400 condominium units are responsible pro rata for any expense in [the] maintaining, repairing and upkeep of said road. By this the court means that [the] number of units on each property should be added together and each unit is responsible for one share of the total aforesaid expenses relative to the road.... Since there are no units on the plaintiff's parcel of land, all maintenance and repairs required for Woodlake Road are the responsibility of the defendant...."

The trial court, construing the terms "repair" and "maintain" according to their ordinary meaning, ¹⁰ further concluded that the plaintiff had established by "overwhelming" evidence that Woodlake Road "has deteriorated to a point where it needs more than a maintenance program" and that it "is in serious need of reconstructive repairs at this time." On the basis of testimony by the plaintiff's two experts regarding the nature and cost of the necessary repairs, the trial court awarded the plaintiff $298,400 and ordered it "to have ... Woodlake Road repaired ... within six (6) months of this date or be subject to a penalty which this court can impose for the failure to do so." ¹¹ The court also ordered that "[i]n the unlikely event that the aforesaid repairs cost less than $298,400.00, then any such excess funds shall be repaid to the defendant by the plaintiff." ¹² The court also awarded the plaintiff prejudgment interest under § 52-192a in the amount of $76,701.20. ¹³ Finally, the court stated that the defendant shall remain solely responsible for maintaining the road in good repair until such time, if ever, as the plaintiff's property is developed. Additional facts will be set forth as they become relevant.

On appeal, the defendant claims that: (1) the trial court improperly concluded that the defendant is responsible for making the required repairs to Woodlake Road; (2) even if the defendant bears some responsibility for those repairs, the trial court improperly concluded that the plaintiff does not share equally in that responsibility; and (3) the conditions of the easement are unenforceable because they impose a limitation on the defendant's rights under the preexisting easement. The plaintiff has appealed, and the defendant has cross appealed, from the trial court's award of offer of judgment interest under § 52-192a. We conclude that the trial court: (1) properly required the defendant to pay for the repairs to Woodlake Road; and (2) improperly awarded the plaintiff prejudgment interest pursuant to § 52-192a.

I

The defendant first claims that the trial court improperly concluded that the defendant breached a duty to the plaintiff to make repairs to Woodlake Road. Specifically, the defendant argues that its obligation to the plaintiff is limited to maintaining Woodlake Road so as to afford the plaintiff the reasonable use of the road and to prevent injury to the plaintiff's property. The defendant further argues that because the plaintiff did not establish that the defendant's failure to make repairs to Woodlake Road had either impaired the plaintiff's use of the road or caused injury to the plaintiff's property, the trial court improperly ordered the defendant to pay for the road repairs. We disagree.

It is true that "[w ]here the instrument is silent, the owner of an easement has a duty to make such repairs as are necessary for the owner of the land to have the reasonable use of his estate"; Center Drive-In Theatre, Inc. v. City of Derby, 166 Conn. 460, 464, 352 A.2d 304 (1974); and, further, that the "owner of an easement may be held to have a duty to maintain it where failure to do so would injure the servient estate." Id. at 465, 352 A.2d 304. The easement in this case, however, is not silent as to the parties' obligations concerning the upkeep of Woodlake Road: the conveyance expressly provides that the parties shall "contribute, pro rata to maintain and keep in good repair [Woodlake Road] until acceptance thereof by [the] Town of Woodbury."

"For a determination of the character and extent of an easement created by deed we must look to the language of the deed, the situation of the property and the surrounding circumstances in order to ascertain the intention of the parties. American Brass Co. v. Serra, 104 Conn. 139, 142, 132 A. 565 (1926). The language of the grant will be given its ordinary import in the absence of anything in the situation or surrounding circumstances which indicates a contrary intent. [Id.]" Mackin v. Mackin, 186 Conn. 185, 189, 439 A.2d 1086 (1982); see also Lago v. Guerrette, 219 Conn. 262, 267-68, 592 A.2d 939 (1991). Because the parties adduced no evidence to suggest that the terms "repair" and "maintain" were intended to have any special or unusual connotation, the trial court properly construed those words according to their ordinary meaning.

Furthermore, the trial court personally inspected Woodlake Road and heard testimony from the plaintiff's experts regarding the extensive work necessary to bring Woodlake Road...