Mackin v. Mackin

Decision Date02 February 1982
Citation439 A.2d 1086,186 Conn. 185
PartiesJulia MACKIN et al. v. Walter MACKIN et al.
CourtConnecticut Supreme Court

J. Michael Sherb, New London, for appellants (defendants).

Jackson T. King, Jr., with whom was Mary E. Holzworth, Norwich, for appellees (plaintiffs).

Before SPEZIALE, C. J., and PETERS, ARTHUR H. HEALEY, PARSKEY and SHEA, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This case involves a dispute over a right of way. The plaintiffs claimed an easement by deed. The defendants denied this claim and, by way of counterclaim, asserted that the plaintiffs by erecting fences narrowed and thereby interfered with the defendants' use of the right of way. The trial court found the issues for the plaintiffs on both the complaint and the counterclaim and also awarded the plaintiffs $2500 in damages.

The immediate story begins in 1963. Prior to that year the brothers Nicholas and Walter Mackin each owned an undivided one-half interest in a large tract of land known as the Mackin Farm and located on the west side of Route 201 in the town of Griswold. On May 25, 1963, they exchanged certain acreage of the Mackin Farm as a result of which Nicholas became the owner and occupant of a cottage and property situated on Pachaug Pond. The deed from Walter to Nicholas conveyed approximately twelve acres of land "together with a right of way, in common with others, over and across all rights of way, as the same now exist, on other land of the said Releasor and Releasee, leading to the highway known as Route 201, and to Pachaug Pond, to him, the said Releasee, his heirs and assigns. Subject to such rights of way, as the same now exist, over and across the herein conveyed premises ...."

At the time of the conveyance in 1963 a passageway or old farm road was in existence which led from Route 201 in a general westerly direction through property owned jointly by Nicholas and Walter to and through property conveyed to Nicholas and continuing along Pachaug Pond to and through other property owned jointly by Nicholas and Walter. There was also in existence in 1963 a road known as Popple Hill Road or Popple Bridge Road which had been a town road before its abandonment by the town many years prior to 1963. This road was northerly of and generally parallel to the old farm road. In 1963 Popple Bridge Road was an existing and visible roadway although at certain times of the year portions of it became almost impassable so that one using the road had to drive onto adjoining fields to pass by those areas which were difficult to travel. In 1963 and for sometime prior thereto there was another visible roadway on the Mackin Farm which led from the old farm road in a northerly direction to Popple Bridge Road. As of May 25, 1963, the three rights of way known as the old farm road or passageway, the connecting road to Popple Bridge Road and Popple Bridge Road itself were visible and in existence. At the time of the conveyance Walter and Nicholas were engaged in a project of improving the old Popple Bridge Road and by sometime in 1963, Popple Bridge Road was an improved right of way with drainage.

Before and after 1963 the brothers Walter and Nicholas had sold building lots in the vicinity of Pachaug Pond which included a right of way from the lots to Route 201. All of the rights of way in existence in 1963, i.e., the old farm road, the connecting road and Popple Bridge Road, were over lands owned by Walter Mackin and Nicholas Mackin. Subsequent to May of 1963 Nicholas conveyed his interest in the property including his cottage to the plaintiff Julia Mackin, and she, in turn, conveyed a portion of the premises to the plaintiffs John and Dale McNally. The McNallys presently reside in a home built by them on this property. Walter conveyed a portion of his property to Rudolph Mackin and the two of them have been involved in developing the premises and working with each other in that regard.

The two defendants, Walter and Rudolph Mackin, have acted in concert in developing and planning the properties, and relocating and blocking the right of way. In 1974, without Nicholas Mackin's or the plaintiffs' permission, the defendants constructed a new gravel road and bulldozed piles of dirt to block access to a portion of the old farm road after the new gravel road was constructed. The defendants had no intention of blocking the plaintiffs' access to Route 201 when they relocated a portion of the old farm road. They also caused Popple Bridge Road to be closed by placing obstructions on it at various points, so as to prevent the use of that roadway by the plaintiffs and others. At the time of trial, the condition of the blocked-off portion of the old farm road was very poor. It was washed out in a number of places and, in general, at that point, was in worse condition than the so-called relocated right of way. The court, after viewing the premises, was of the opinion that the "passageway" is presently in such a state of disrepair that the cost to the plaintiffs of repairing it would, in relation to the minor inconvenience caused by the obstruction, be excessive and that damages in the amount of $2500 would adequately compensate the plaintiffs for the wrongful relocation of the passageway.

The plaintiff John McNally caused a split rail wooden fence to be placed on both sides of the old farm road in the area where it passed through property owned by him and property owned by Julia Mackin. At its narrowest point, the fenced portion of the old farm road was fifteen feet wide. The existence of this fence did not interfere with the passage of vehicles along the old farm road. The court viewed the old farm road in its entirety, including the section that was boarded by the split rail fence, and did not inspect those other portions of the subject property where Popple Bridge Road and the connecting right of way...

To continue reading

Request your trial
24 cases
  • Kelly v. Ivler
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • 4 Mayo 1982
    ...115 Conn. 469, 472, 162 A. 21 (1932); Beattie v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co., 84 Conn. 555, 559, 80 A. 709 (1911)." Mackin v. Mackin, 186 Conn. 185, 190, 439 A.2d 1086 (1982). There was evidence before the court, in the form of testimony by Philip Cippri, an experienced landscaper and tree ......
  • State v. Flynn, s. 4132
    • United States
    • Connecticut Court of Appeals
    • 5 Abril 1988
    ...of as to whether to allow a jury to view the crime scene rests within the sound discretion of the trial court. Mackin v. Mackin, 186 Conn. 185, 190, 439 A.2d 1086 (1982); State v. Taxiltaridis, 2 Conn.App. 617, 622, 481 A.2d 98 In this case, the trial court's denial of the motion to view wa......
  • Francini v. Goodspeed Airport, LLC
    • United States
    • Connecticut Court of Appeals
    • 5 Abril 2016
    ...created by grant, any ambiguity in the grant, in a case of reasonable doubt, is construed in favor of the grantee. Mackin v. Mackin, 186 Conn. 185, 189, 439 A.2d 1086 (1982). In this case, the grant of the right-of-way is in general terms without any restrictions other than its use as a rig......
  • Giannitti v. City of Stamford
    • United States
    • Connecticut Court of Appeals
    • 18 Junio 1991
    ...incident, and that such a personal inspection is fair to both parties and "reasonably necessary to do justice." Mackin v. Mackin, 186 Conn. 185, 190, 439 A.2d 1086 (1982). A careful review of the transcribed dialogue between the court and defense counsel regarding the defendant's motion to ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Dis-unity of Title in Connecticut
    • United States
    • Connecticut Bar Association Connecticut Bar Journal No. 75, 2001
    • Invalid date
    ...1999). 125 257 Conn. 570. 126 Id. at 580-81. 127 Id. at 583-85. 128 Id. at 586 n.29. 129 Carbone, 222 Conn. at 225. 130 Mackin v. Mackin, 186 Conn. 185, 189, 439 A.2d 1086 (1982); see also Birdsey v. Kosienski, 140 Conn. 403, 412-13, 101 A.2d 274 (1953); Peck v. Mackowsky, 85 Conn. 190, 194......

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