Marchesi v. Bd. of Selectmen of the Town of Lyme, SC 19726
Decision Date | 24 April 2018 |
Docket Number | SC 19726 |
Citation | 181 A.3d 531,328 Conn. 615 |
Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
Parties | Rhonda M. MARCHESI v. BOARD OF SELECTMEN OF the TOWN OF LYME et al. |
Harry B. Heller, for the appellant (plaintiff).
Kenneth M. McKeever, for the appellees (named defendant et al.).
McDonald, Robinson, D'Auria, Vertefeuille and Kahn, Js.*
This case returns to us after the remand ordered in Marchesi v. Board of Selectmen , 309 Conn. 608, 72 A.3d 394 (2013), for a trial de novo to determine the length and width of a particular highway known as Brockway Ferry Road. The plaintiff, Rhonda M. Marchesi, appeals1 from the judgment of the trial court dismissing her appeal, brought pursuant to General Statutes § 13a–40,2 from the decision of the defendants, the town of Lyme (town) and its Board of Selectmen (board),3 determining the lost or uncertain boundaries of the westerly end of Brockway Ferry Road pursuant to General Statutes § 13a–39.4 On appeal, the plaintiff contends that (1) the board and the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction under §§ 13a–39 and 13a–40, respectively, because it had not been judicially established as a condition precedent that Brockway Ferry Road was in fact a public highway, and (2) there were numerous other defects in the prosecution of the underlying petition before the board. Turning to the merits, the plaintiff also claims that the trial court's finding with respect to the width of Brockway Ferry Road was clearly erroneous. We disagree with the plaintiff's claims and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The record reveals the following facts and procedural history. Brockway Ferry Road is a highway5 located near the shore of the Connecticut River in the town. It extends in a southwest direction from Joshuatown Road toward its terminus near the shore of the Connecticut River, where it historically had provided access to a ferry that had operated from 1725 until 1884. The highway's western end is not improved and is partially encumbered by vegetation and other obstacles. Portions of that area run below the high water mark and are intermittently submerged. 6 7 (Footnote added; internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., at 612, 72 A.3d 394. The board's decision is depicted on a map dated June 29, 2006 (2006 map).8
(Internal quotation marks 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 , supra, 309 Conn. at 611 n.4, 72 A.3d 394.
On appeal, we concluded that the Appellate Court had properly determined that "parties appealing pursuant to § 13a–40 are entitled to a trial de novo ...." Id., at 611, 72 A.3d 394 ; see also id., at 617–19, 72 A.3d 394 ( ). We disagreed, however, with the "Appellate Court's conclusion that § 13a–39 authorizes the selectmen of a town to determine the width of the existing highway, but not its length." Id., at 611, 72 A.3d 394 ; see also id., at 621–25, 72 A.3d 394 ( ). Accordingly, we reversed the judgment of the Appellate Court and remanded the case to that court with direction to remand the case to the trial court "for further proceedings to determine the width and length of the existing highway." Id., at 611–12, 72 A.3d 394.
On remand, the trial court, Hon. Joseph Q. Koletsky , judge trial referee,9 conducted a three day court trial. At that trial, the court received numerous exhibits, including a variety of surveys and historical maps, and heard expert testimony from two surveyors, Richard Strouse and Gerald Stefon, whom the board had retained in connection with the proceedings under § 13a–39 to conduct historical research and survey the lines and bounds of the westerly end of the highway. The court also heard testimony from several adjoining proprietors; see footnote 3 of this opinion; including Robert H. Sutton, Eleanor B. Sutton, Leslie V. Shaffer, Richard W. Sutton, and Curtis D. Deane, about the public's use of the westerly end of the highway for access to the river for recreational purposes such as dog walking, swimming, and boat launching. Parker Lord, the previous owner of the plaintiff's property,10 testified about his understanding of the highway's boundaries vis-à-vis the plaintiff's property, along with the public's use of the highway for river access.
At the close of the evidence, the plaintiff moved to dismiss the trial de novo proceeding on the ground that the case had effectively been prosecuted by the board and the town—which § 13a–39 required to act as adjudicators rather than advocates—rather than by one of the adjoining proprietors, who would be the real party in interest under §§ 13a–39 and 13a–40. The trial court denied the motion, concluding that it had subject matter jurisdiction based on remand from this court and the fact that the parties had previously agreed that the defendants would assume the burden of proof at the trial de novo. The trial court further emphasized that, in deciding this case, it did not have jurisdiction to determine the legal status of the highway, such as whether it had been abandoned through nonuse or otherwise discontinued, and that its sole charge was to determine the bounds of the highway. After hearing argument about that evidence, the court rendered judgment dismissing the plaintiff's administrative appeal and "confirming" the board's finding with respect to the "lost or uncertain bounds" of the highway's western end. See appendix to and footnote 7 of this opinion. This appeal followed.
On appeal, the plaintiff (1) raises a plethora of challenges to the subject matter jurisdiction of the board and the trial court, and (2) contends that the trial court's determination of the highway's width was clearly erroneous. We address each of these claims in turn, setting forth additional facts and procedural history as appropriate.
We begin with the plaintiff's claims that the board lacked subject matter jurisdiction to define the boundaries of the highway under § 13a–39, which, in turn, deprived the trial court of jurisdiction to do so under § 13a–40, because (1) a court of competent jurisdiction had not first resolved a condition precedent, namely, the question of whether a public highway continued to exist in the disputed area, and (2) the filing and prosecution of the underlying petition to the board under § 13a–39 were fatally defective.
The plaintiff's first claim is that the board and the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction under §§ 13a–39 and 13a–40, respectively, to define the highway's boundaries because a court of competent jurisdiction had not first resolved the threshold question of whether a public highway continued to exist in the disputed area and, more specifically, whether that portion of the highway had been abandoned by nonuse. Relying on Hamann v. Newtown , 14 Conn. App. 521, 541 A.2d 899 (1988), Montanaro v. Aspetuck Land Trust, Inc. , 137 Conn. App. 1, 48 A.3d 107, cert. denied, 307 Conn. 932, 56 A.3d 715 (2012), and Nicholas v. East Hampton , Superior Court, Judicial District of Middlesex, Docket No. CV–04–0103439–S (November 14, 2005) (40 Conn. L. Rptr. 453), the plaintiff contends that a judicial determination, through either a...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Indep. Party of CT—State Cent. v. Merrill
...context, is susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Marchesi v. Board of Selectmen , 328 Conn. 615, 627–28, 181 A.3d 531 (2018).Beginning with the statutory text, § 9-374 provides in relevant part: "In the case of a minor party, no author......
-
Feehan v. Marcone
...court previously has interpreted a statute ...." (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Marchesi v. Board of Selectmen , 328 Conn. 615, 627–28, 181 A.3d 531 (2018). We begin with the text of § 9-328, which provides in relevant part that "[a]ny elector or candidate claiming to......
-
Borelli v. Renaldi
...marks omitted.) Hasselt v. Lufthansa German Airlines , 262 Conn. 416, 426, 815 A.2d 94 (2003) ; accord Marchesi v. Board of Selectmen , 328 Conn. 615, 640–41, 181 A.3d 531 (2018) ; C. R. Klewin Northeast, LLC v. State, 299 Conn. 167, 177, 9 A.3d 326 (2010) ; Felician Sisters of St. Francis ......
-
Town of Wethersfield v. PR Arrow, LLC
...and factually supported.... On appeal, we do not retry the facts ...." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Marchesi v. Board of Selectmen , 328 Conn. 615, 643, 181 A.3d 531 (2018).The trial court in the present case rejected the defendant's purported good faith understanding of its order. A......