Marchesi v. Bd. of Selectmen of The Town of Lyme
Citation | 28 A.3d 994,131 Conn.App. 24 |
Decision Date | 30 August 2011 |
Docket Number | No. 29999.,29999. |
Court | Appellate Court of Connecticut |
Parties | Rhonda M. MARCHESIv.BOARD OF SELECTMEN OF the TOWN OF LYME et al. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Kenneth M. McKeever, town attorney, for the appellants (named defendant et al.).Harry B. Heller, Uncasville, for the appellee (plaintiff).HARPER, LAVINE and MIHALAKOS, Js.HARPER, J.
The defendants in this administrative appeal, the board of selectmen of the town of Lyme (board) and the town of Lyme (town),1 appeal from the summary judgment rendered by the trial court in favor of the plaintiff, Rhonda M. Marchesi. The defendants claim that the court improperly (1) concluded that the parties were entitled to a trial de novo, (2) concluded that the board had exceeded its authority by determining that a highway existed on the plaintiff's property, (3) determined that there were no issues of material fact to preclude the granting of summary judgment and (4) made a finding of fact unsupported by the evidence.2 We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The record reveals the following undisputed facts and procedural history. Brockway Ferry Road 3 is a highway located near the shore of the Connecticut River in Lyme. The plaintiff owns real property, improved with a single family residence, on Brockway Ferry Road. In 2006, several other proprietors of real property abutting Brockway Ferry Road filed a petition, pursuant to General Statutes § 13a–39, requesting that the board define the boundaries of Brockway Ferry Road, particularly at its western end, in the area of the plaintiff's property. The board considered documentary and testimonial evidence and held hearings related to the petition. In October, 2006, the board published notice of its memorandum of decision in which it “made a determination of the boundary and terminus of Brockway Ferry Road at its western end as it runs along and into the Connecticut River.” Essentially, the board concluded that Brockway Ferry Road extended through and across the plaintiff's property, past the then existing western terminus of the highway.
Thereafter, the plaintiff brought an administrative appeal, pursuant to General Statutes § 13a–40, in the Superior Court. The plaintiff asserted that the board's decision introduced a public highway through and across her property, lessened the value of her property and negatively affected her use and enjoyment of her property. The plaintiff raised several claims related to the board's jurisdiction. Additionally, the plaintiff claimed that the board had acted illegally, arbitrarily and in abuse of its discretion. The gist of the complaint was that, rather than defining the width of an existing public highway, the board extended the length of said highway at its western terminus.
In June, 2007, the plaintiff moved for summary judgment. The defendants opposed the motion arguing, in part, that the plaintiff was not entitled to move for summary judgment in an administrative appeal. In its May 20, 2008 memorandum of decision, the court granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. The court concluded that it was entitled to consider the appeal in a trial de novo and, therefore, that the motion for summary judgment procedurally was appropriate. Thereafter, the court concluded that the plaintiff was entitled to judgment, as a matter of law, because the board exceeded the scope of its statutory authority by determining the length of Brockway Ferry Road, rather than its width. This appeal followed.
First, the defendants claim that, in concluding that summary judgment procedurally was proper in this case, the court improperly determined that the parties were entitled to a trial de novo. We disagree.
The defendants argued before the trial court that the plaintiff was not entitled to a trial de novo but, rather, the court was limited to determining whether substantial evidence supported the board's decision. The court's determination rests, to a large extent, on its interpretation of § 13a–40. (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re A.R., 123 Conn.App. 336, 339, 1 A.3d 1184 (2010).
Section 13a–40 provides in relevant part: (Emphasis added.)
Nothing in the plain language of the statute governing an appeal from the decision of the board limits the authority of the Superior Court in its review of the board's determination. Rather, the language of the statute unambiguously states that the court, examining the issues by itself, may change or set aside the decision of the board and make such orders in the premises as it finds to be equitable. Unlike the defendants, we do not interpret the statute in such a manner that it precludes the court from conducting a trial de novo. Furthermore, the defendants have not presented this court with persuasive authority to the contrary. Subsequent to the filing of an administrative appeal in which the parties are entitled to a judgment de novo, the appeal shall “follow the same course of pleading as that followed in ordinary civil actions.” Practice Book § 14–7(d)(5). This course of pleading encompasses the motion for summary judgment. See Practice Book § 17–44.
Second, the defendants claim that the court improperly concluded that the board had exceeded its authority by determining that a highway existed on the plaintiff's property. We disagree.
A determination of the board's authority requires that we interpret § 13a–39. In part I of this opinion, we set forth the principles guiding our review. Section 13a–39 provides in relevant part:
The defendants argue that the legislature conferred authority on the board to “determine the line of the highway and the bounds thereof which, by definition and common sense, include both the width and the length of Brockway Ferry Road.” They argue that
We begin our analysis with the text of the statute. It provides that proprietors of land adjoining a highway may apply to the board for a determination “[w]henever the boundaries of [the] highway have been lost or become uncertain....” General Statutes § 13a–39. The statute confers the authority to define “the line of [a] highway and the bounds thereof....” General Statutes § 13a–39. Although the legislature did not define the key terms in the statute, we may look to the ordinary usage of the language in affording it its plain meaning. See Hartford/Windsor Healthcare Properties, LLC v. Hartford, 298 Conn. 191, 200–201, 3 A.3d 56 (2010) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Marchesi v. Bd. of Selectmen of the Town of Lyme, SC 19726
...omitted.) Id., at 612–13, 72 A.3d 394. The Appellate Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court. See Marchesi v. Board of Selectmen , 131 Conn. App. 24, 26, 28 A.3d 994 (2011). We then granted the defendants' petition for certification to appeal. See Marchesi v. Board of Selectmen , sup......
-
Montanaro v. Aspetuck Land Trust, Inc.
...of the case, including the question of whether the language does so apply.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Marchesi v. Board of Selectmen, 131 Conn.App. 24, 28, 28 A.3d 994, cert. granted on other grounds, 303 Conn. 903, 31 A.3d 1178 (2011). We agree with the court's reading of Hamann ......
- Bank v. Gianopoulos
-
Marchesi v. Bd. of Selectmen of the Town of Lyme
...judgment of the trial court, which rendered summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff, Rhonda M. Marchesi. Marchesi v. Board of Selectmen, 131 Conn.App. 24, 28 A.3d 994 (2011). On appeal to this court, the defendants claim that the Appellate Court improperly concluded that: (1) the trial c......