Lisiewski v. Seidel

• Decision Date: 15 October 2002
• Docket Number: (AC 21385)
• Citation: 72 Conn. App. 861,806 A.2d 1121
• Court: Connecticut Court of Appeals
• Parties: CHESTER LISIEWSKI v. JOHN A. SEIDEL ET AL.

72 Conn. App. 861

806 A.2d 1121

CHESTER LISIEWSKI v.JOHN A. SEIDEL ET AL.

(AC 21385)

Appellate Court of Connecticut

Argued December 11, 2001

Officially released October 15, 2002

Mihalakos, Flynn and Stoughton, Js.

Ernest J. Cotnoir, for the appellants(defendants).Beth A. Steele, for the appellee(plaintiff).

Opinion

FLYNN, J.

The defendants, John A. Seidel and Fred R. Seidel, Jr., appeal from the judgment of the trial court, which resolved this boundary dispute involving property located in the town of Sprague in favor of the plaintiff and also found that the plaintiff held a prescriptive easement over the defendants' gravel driveway.We affirm in part and reverse in part the judgment of the trial court.

The plaintiff, Chester Lisiewski, owns land to the east of the disputed property and brought this action when the defendants erected a metal gate obstructing his passage over the driveway.On appeal, the defendants claim that the trial court improperly found a latent ambiguity in the deed description of the property and improperly resolved that ambiguity against them.The defendants also challenge the trial court's determination that the plaintiff holds a prescriptive easement over the driveway, claiming that the plaintiff did not set forth sufficient evidence to establish that his use was not permissive.We agree with the defendants' first claim.Accordingly, we reverse that part of the judgment determining the location of the shared boundary between the parties.We affirm that part of the judgment finding that the plaintiff held a prescriptive easement over the gravel driveway.

The parcel of land subject to the title dispute is a narrow, L-shaped parcel on the northerly and westerly borders of the plaintiff's land (disputed area).There is also a dispute over an easement to use the existing gravel driveway.Even if one accepts the construction of deeds advanced by the plaintiff, almost all of the gravel driveway is located on the undisputed land of the defendants except for a narrow gore within the disputed area which expands from a sliver to a width of five feet on the street line.

The following undisputed facts and procedural history are relevant to our resolution of this appeal.In the early 1950s, the plaintiff and the defendants' grandfather, Reinhold Seidel, worked together as foremen in the same factory.At that time, the plaintiff and Seidel negotiated the land conveyance at issue in this appeal.Seidel owned real property in the town of Sprague, which he decided to sell to the plaintiff.In 1952, prior to conveyance, the plaintiff began building a house on the land.During construction, vehicles eventually wore a path near the western boundary of the parcel that Reinhold Seidel would eventually convey to the plaintiff.It was this path that would later evolve into the gravel driveway at issue in this appeal.On April 28, 1954, Seidel conveyed the land to the plaintiff's wife by warranty deed, which was recorded in the Sprague land records in volume 16, pages 410 and 411.

When the plaintiff moved in, the land immediately to the east of the gravel driveway was "practically" a "jungle," due to heavy foliage.The plaintiff soon cleared and cultivated the area.In late 1954, he planted a row of Hemlocks in that area, roughly parallel to the gravel driveway.In the late 1950s, he built a stone wall in the disputed area.One length of that stone wall lay several feet to the east of the gravel driveway.

Meanwhile, Seidel retained land to the west, including the gravel driveway.This land eventually passed to the defendants.Upon Seidel's death, the land first passed from his estate to Martha Emma Seidel, his wife.In 1962, Martha Emma Seidel conveyed that land by quitclaim deed dated February 16, 1962, and recorded in the Sprague land records in volume 15, page 413, to her son, Fred Seidel, and his wife Olga.Finally, Fred Seidel and Olga Seidel conveyed the land to their two sons, John Seidel and Fred R. Seidel, Jr., (the defendants) by warranty deed dated and recorded on June 20, 1997, on pages 689 and 690 of volume 53 of the Sprague land records.

Before the defendants acquired the property to the west of what their grandfather had conveyed to the plaintiff, the plaintiff had used the gravel driveway for more than forty years as a means of egress and ingress to and from his property.In 1981, the plaintiff built a garage behind and to the north of his house, connecting with the gravel driveway.Prior to that date, he had simply parked vehicles outside in the same location.The defendants' predecessors in title, namely their father and grandfather, never challenged the plaintiff's use of the gravel driveway.

Shortly after acquiring the land to the west of the plaintiff's land from their parents, however, the defendants erected a metal gate near the end of the gravel driveway, preventing the plaintiff's passage.The defendants hired a surveyor, Thomas Brennan, who set pins in the ground indicating that their boundary lay near the stone wall built by the plaintiff, to the east of the driveway.In the view of this expert, the defendants held title to most of the gravel driveway and the strip of land between the eastern edge of the driveway and the plaintiff's stone wall.

The plaintiff hired his own surveyor, John Faulise.In the plaintiff's view, most of the gravel driveway remains the property of defendants, but the disputed area to the east of the driveway is his.The court adopted the plaintiff's view as to the ownership of the disputed area and also found that the plaintiff held a prescriptive easement over the gravel driveway.¹It held in pertinent part: "After a motion for articulation/reargument, the court entered judgment for the plaintiff on the second count of the amended revised complaint.The court finds the allegations in the second and third counts of the amended revised complaint to be true.²The court, having heard the interested parties, finds that the plaintiff has established through the testimony of his expert and through his deed that he has, in fact, title to the disputed land as set forth on exhibit A, and that the defendants have no title, interest or estate therein.The court further finds that the defendants failed to establish their claim of adverse possession as to the disputed area by clear and convincing evidence.Accordingly, the court finds that the plaintiff has clear title to the disputed area as set forth on exhibit A and enters judgment accordingly.The court further finds that the plaintiff has a prescriptive easement over the gravel driveway as shown on a map entitled `Property Survey prepared for Chester Lisiewski, 108 Bushnell Hollow Road, Sprague, Connecticut, Scale 1"= 20', May, 1998' by John U. Faulise, Jr., Boundaries, LLC, and enters judgment accordingly."

The exhibit A the court referenced in its judgment was not the exhibit A of the revised amended complaint, but contained the same legal description found on exhibit C of the revised amended complaint.The courses and distances set forth in both exhibit A of the court's judgment and exhibit C of the revised amended complaint describe only a northerly and westerly line of the disputed area.We mean that the legal description does not close by describing all sides of this L-shaped parcel.However, because the courses and description are followed by the words, "Said disputed area contains.15 acres more or less and is shown as `Disputed Area' on a survey plan prepared by John U. Faulise, Jr., L.S., Boundaries entitled: Property Survey prepared for Chester Lisiewski, 108 Bushnell Hollow Road, Sprague, Connecticut, scale 1"= 20', May 1998, IdentNo. 98-065, Last Revised 1/14/00," we conclude that the court's description is clear as to the description of the disputed area despite the fact that the courses set forth do not contain a description of all sides of the parcel.

After the judgment was rendered, the defendants filed this appeal.Further facts and procedural history will be set forth where necessary.

The defendants first claim that the court improperly determined that the relevant deed description contained a latent ambiguity.We agree.Accordingly, we reverse that aspect of the trial court's judgment.

"The principles guiding our construction of land conveyance instruments, such as the [deed] at issue in this appeal, are well established.The construction of a deed... presents a question of law which we have plenary power to resolve....Il Giardino, LLC v. Belle Haven Land Co.,254 Conn. 502, 511, 757 A.2d 1103(2000)."(Internal quotation marks omitted.)Mackie v. Hull,69 Conn. App. 538, 541, 795 A.2d 1280, cert. denied, 261 Conn. 916, 917, 812 A.2d 865(2002)."In determining the location of a boundary line expressed in a deed, if the description is clear and unambiguous, it governs and the actual intent of the parties is irrelevant."(Internal quotation marks omitted.)Id., 542.

The trial court found that there was a latent ambiguity in the deed description of the plaintiff's property used in the conveyance from the defendants' predecessor in title, Reinhold Seidel, to the plaintiff."A latent ambiguity arises from extraneous or collateral facts that make the meaning of a deed uncertain although its language is clear and unambiguous on its face.Heyman Associates No. 1 v. Ins. Co. of Pennsylvania,231 Conn. 756, 782, 653 A.2d 122(1995)."Marshall v. Soffer,58 Conn. App. 737, 743, 756 A.2d 284(2000).This warranty deed was dated April 28, 1954, and recorded in volume 16 on pages 410 and 411 of the Sprague land records, and described the property conveyed as follows: "Beginning at a point on the northerly side of [Bushnell Hollow Road] at the southeasterly corner of these conveyed premises and the southwesterly corner of land of Esdras Gosselin and running thence northerly along a wire fence 415 feet bounded easterly by said Gosselin land; thence westerly 200 feet to a bound;...