adverse possession claim in Connecticut

2025Before addressing the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims, we identify the legal principles relevant to an adverse possession claim. ‘‘[T]o establish title by adverse pos- session, the claimant must oust an owner of possession and keep such owner out without interruption for fif- teen years by an open, visible and exclusive possession under a claim of right with the intent to use the property as his [or her] own and without the consent of the owner.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) O’Connor v. Larocque, 302 Conn. 562, 581 , 31 A.3d 1 (2011); see also General Statutes § 52-575 (a). ‘‘It is su

2025Before addressing the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims, we identify the legal principles relevant to an adverse possession claim. ‘‘[T]o establish title by adverse pos- session, the claimant must oust an owner of possession and keep such owner out without interruption for fif- teen years by an open, visible and exclusive possession under a claim of right with the intent to use the property as his [or her] own and without the consent of the owner.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) O’Connor v. Larocque, 302 Conn. 562, 581 , 31 A.3d 1 (2011); see also General Statutes § 52-575 (a). ‘‘It is su

2000In Sands Associates v. Rios , 6 Conn. App. 84 (1986), an adverse possession claim was rejected as not being "continuous and exclusive." The activity there dwarfs the alleged actions of this plaintiff and included clearing the area in dispute, maintaining a garden, raising pigs and CT Page 14592 chickens, constructing a garage, erecting a fence, etc. It is also significant that in this case, the plaintiff described no control over the portion of the area in dispute which lies beyond the end of the fence to the street line.

1992Schulz v. Syvertsen, 219 Conn. 81 , 91 ; Sands Associates v. Rios 6 Conn. App. 84 , 87 .

2025If one party’s period of use or possession is insufficient to satisfy the fifteen year requirement, that party may tack on the period of use or possession of someone who is in privity with the party, a relationship that may be established by showing a transfer of possession rights.’’ (Citation omitted; inter- nal quotation marks omitted.) Supronowicz v. Eaton, 224 Conn. App. 66, 75 , 312 A.3d 100 , cert. denied, 349 Conn. 904 , 312 A.3d 1057 (2024). ‘‘It is well established that one claiming title to real property by adverse possession must prove by clear and positive evidence each element of

2025If one party’s period of use or possession is insufficient to satisfy the fifteen year requirement, that party may tack on the period of use or possession of someone who is in privity with the party, a relationship that may be established by showing a transfer of possession rights.’’ (Citation omitted; inter- nal quotation marks omitted.) Supronowicz v. Eaton, 224 Conn. App. 66, 75 , 312 A.3d 100 , cert. denied, 349 Conn. 904 , 312 A.3d 1057 (2024). ‘‘It is well established that one claiming title to real property by adverse possession must prove by clear and positive evidence each element of

2025Moreover, [a] successful adverse possession action results in a legal titleholder forfeiting ownership to an adverse holder without compensation. . . . [T]hat is why the elements of adverse possession are stringent.’’ (Citations omitted; footnote omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Mulvey v. Palo, 226 Conn. App. 495 , 500–503, 319 A.3d 211 , cert. denied, 350 Conn. 902 , 322 A.3d 1059 (2024); see also General Statutes § 52-575. ‘‘[T]he question of whether the elements of an adverse possession claim have been established by clear and convincing evidence is a factual one subject to the c

2024In evaluating a claim of adverse possession under that demanding standard, [e]very pre- sumption is in favor of possession in subordination to the title of the true owner.’’ (Citations omitted; empha- sis added; footnote omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Mulvey v. Palo, 226 Conn. App. 495 , 500–502, 319 A.3d 211 (2024), petition for cert. filed (Conn. July 19, 2024) (No. 240124). ‘‘[T]he question of whether the elements of an adverse possession claim have been established by clear and convincing evidence is a factual one subject to the clearly erroneous standard of review.’’ (Interna

2025If one party’s period of use or possession is insufficient to satisfy the fifteen year requirement, that party may tack on the period of use or possession of someone who is in privity with the party, a relationship that may be established by showing a transfer of possession rights.’’ (Citation omitted; inter- nal quotation marks omitted.) Supronowicz v. Eaton, 224 Conn. App. 66, 75 , 312 A.3d 100 , cert. denied, 349 Conn. 904 , 312 A.3d 1057 (2024). ‘‘It is well established that one claiming title to real property by adverse possession must prove by clear and positive evidence each element of

2025If one party’s period of use or possession is insufficient to satisfy the fifteen year requirement, that party may tack on the period of use or possession of someone who is in privity with the party, a relationship that may be established by showing a transfer of possession rights.’’ (Citation omitted; inter- nal quotation marks omitted.) Supronowicz v. Eaton, 224 Conn. App. 66, 75 , 312 A.3d 100 , cert. denied, 349 Conn. 904 , 312 A.3d 1057 (2024). ‘‘It is well established that one claiming title to real property by adverse possession must prove by clear and positive evidence each element of

2025If one party’s period of use or possession is insufficient to satisfy the fifteen year requirement, that party may tack on the period of use or possession of someone who is in privity with the party, a relationship that may be established by showing a transfer of possession rights.’’ (Citation omitted; inter- nal quotation marks omitted.) Supronowicz v. Eaton, 224 Conn. App. 66, 75 , 312 A.3d 100 , cert. denied, 349 Conn. 904 , 312 A.3d 1057 (2024). ‘‘It is well established that one claiming title to real property by adverse possession must prove by clear and positive evidence each element of

2025If one party’s period of use or possession is insufficient to satisfy the fifteen year requirement, that party may tack on the period of use or possession of someone who is in privity with the party, a relationship that may be established by showing a transfer of possession rights.’’ (Citation omitted; inter- nal quotation marks omitted.) Supronowicz v. Eaton, 224 Conn. App. 66, 75 , 312 A.3d 100 , cert. denied, 349 Conn. 904 , 312 A.3d 1057 (2024). ‘‘It is well established that one claiming title to real property by adverse possession must prove by clear and positive evidence each element of

2025If one party’s period of use or possession is insufficient to satisfy the fifteen year requirement, that party may tack on the period of use or possession of someone who is in privity with the party, a relationship that may be established by showing a transfer of possession rights.’’ (Citation omitted; inter- nal quotation marks omitted.) Supronowicz v. Eaton, 224 Conn. App. 66, 75 , 312 A.3d 100 , cert. denied, 349 Conn. 904 , 312 A.3d 1057 (2024). ‘‘It is well established that one claiming title to real property by adverse possession must prove by clear and positive evidence each element of

2025If one party’s period of use or possession is insufficient to satisfy the fifteen year requirement, that party may tack on the period of use or possession of someone who is in privity with the party, a relationship that may be established by showing a transfer of possession rights.’’ (Citation omitted; inter- nal quotation marks omitted.) Supronowicz v. Eaton, 224 Conn. App. 66, 75 , 312 A.3d 100 , cert. denied, 349 Conn. 904 , 312 A.3d 1057 (2024). ‘‘It is well established that one claiming title to real property by adverse possession must prove by clear and positive evidence each element of

2025If one party’s period of use or possession is insufficient to satisfy the fifteen year requirement, that party may tack on the period of use or possession of someone who is in privity with the party, a relationship that may be established by showing a transfer of possession rights.’’ (Citation omitted; inter- nal quotation marks omitted.) Supronowicz v. Eaton, 224 Conn. App. 66, 75 , 312 A.3d 100 , cert. denied, 349 Conn. 904 , 312 A.3d 1057 (2024). ‘‘It is well established that one claiming title to real property by adverse possession must prove by clear and positive evidence each element of

2025If one party’s period of use or possession is insufficient to satisfy the fifteen year requirement, that party may tack on the period of use or possession of someone who is in privity with the party, a relationship that may be established by showing a transfer of possession rights.’’ (Citation omitted; inter- nal quotation marks omitted.) Supronowicz v. Eaton, 224 Conn. App. 66, 75 , 312 A.3d 100 , cert. denied, 349 Conn. 904 , 312 A.3d 1057 (2024). ‘‘It is well established that one claiming title to real property by adverse possession must prove by clear and positive evidence each element of

2024Clear and convincing proof of the elements of an adverse possession claim is an ‘‘exacting standard’’; Top of the Town, LLC v. Somers Sportsmen’s Assn., Inc., 69 Conn. App. 839, 844 , 797 A.2d 18 , cert. denied, 261 Conn. 916 , 806 A.2d 1058 (2002); that ‘‘lies between the belief that is required to find the truth or existence of the [fact in issue] in an ordinary civil action and the belief that is required to find guilt in a criminal prosecu- tion. . . . [The burden] is sustained if evidence induces in the mind of the trier a reasonable belief that the facts asserted are highly probably true

2024Clear and convincing proof of the elements of an adverse possession claim is an ‘‘exacting standard’’; Top of the Town, LLC v. Somers Sportsmen’s Assn., Inc., 69 Conn. App. 839, 844 , 797 A.2d 18 , cert. denied, 261 Conn. 916 , 806 A.2d 1058 (2002); that ‘‘lies between the belief that is required to find the truth or existence of the [fact in issue] in an ordinary civil action and the belief that is required to find guilt in a criminal prosecu- tion. . . . [The burden] is sustained if evidence induces in the mind of the trier a reasonable belief that the facts asserted are highly probably true

2024Clear and convincing proof of the elements of an adverse possession claim is an ‘‘exacting standard’’; Top of the Town, LLC v. Somers Sportsmen’s Assn., Inc., 69 Conn. App. 839, 844 , 797 A.2d 18 , cert. denied, 261 Conn. 916 , 806 A.2d 1058 (2002); that ‘‘lies between the belief that is required to find the truth or existence of the [fact in issue] in an ordinary civil action and the belief that is required to find guilt in a criminal prosecu- tion. . . . [The burden] is sustained if evidence induces in the mind of the trier a reasonable belief that the facts asserted are highly probably true

2007In this opinion the other judges concurred. 1 Because we affirm the court’s judgment as to the adverse possession claim, we need not reach the defendants’ claim regarding a prescriptive easement. 2 “[A] license in real property is a mere privilege to act on the land of another, which does not produce an interest in the property . . . .” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Top of the Town, LLC v. Somers Sportsmen’s Assn., Inc., 69 Conn. App. 839, 845 , 797 A.2d 18 , cert. denied, 261 Conn. 916 , 806 A.2d 1058 (2002). 3 “The word ‘consent’ has been used in the legal analysis of claims of adverse

2024Clear and convincing proof of the elements of an adverse possession claim is an ‘‘exacting standard’’; Top of the Town, LLC v. Somers Sportsmen’s Assn., Inc., 69 Conn. App. 839, 844 , 797 A.2d 18 , cert. denied, 261 Conn. 916 , 806 A.2d 1058 (2002); that ‘‘lies between the belief that is required to find the truth or existence of the [fact in issue] in an ordinary civil action and the belief that is required to find guilt in a criminal prosecu- tion. . . . [The burden] is sustained if evidence induces in the mind of the trier a reasonable belief that the facts asserted are highly probably true

2007In this opinion the other judges concurred. 1 Because we affirm the court’s judgment as to the adverse possession claim, we need not reach the defendants’ claim regarding a prescriptive easement. 2 “[A] license in real property is a mere privilege to act on the land of another, which does not produce an interest in the property . . . .” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Top of the Town, LLC v. Somers Sportsmen’s Assn., Inc., 69 Conn. App. 839, 845 , 797 A.2d 18 , cert. denied, 261 Conn. 916 , 806 A.2d 1058 (2002). 3 “The word ‘consent’ has been used in the legal analysis of claims of adverse

2024Clear and convincing proof of the elements of an adverse possession claim is an ‘‘exacting standard’’; Top of the Town, LLC v. Somers Sportsmen’s Assn., Inc., 69 Conn. App. 839, 844 , 797 A.2d 18 , cert. denied, 261 Conn. 916 , 806 A.2d 1058 (2002); that ‘‘lies between the belief that is required to find the truth or existence of the [fact in issue] in an ordinary civil action and the belief that is required to find guilt in a criminal prosecu- tion. . . . [The burden] is sustained if evidence induces in the mind of the trier a reasonable belief that the facts asserted are highly probably true

2024Clear and convincing proof of the elements of an adverse possession claim is an ‘‘exacting standard’’; Top of the Town, LLC v. Somers Sportsmen’s Assn., Inc., 69 Conn. App. 839, 844 , 797 A.2d 18 , cert. denied, 261 Conn. 916 , 806 A.2d 1058 (2002); that ‘‘lies between the belief that is required to find the truth or existence of the [fact in issue] in an ordinary civil action and the belief that is required to find guilt in a criminal prosecu- tion. . . . [The burden] is sustained if evidence induces in the mind of the trier a reasonable belief that the facts asserted are highly probably true

2022Id.

2022Id.

1999Roche v. Fairfield, supra, at page 502, defines the "exclusivity" element of an adverse possession claim as follows: "In general, exclusive possession can be established by acts which at the time, considering the state of the land, comport with ownership; viz., such acts as would ordinarily be exercised by an owner in appropriating land to his own use and the exclusion of others." "Thus, the claimant's possession need not be absolutely exclusive; it need only be a type of possession which would characterize an owner's use." The claimant's possession of the disputed land must be without license

1992Roche v. Fairfield, 186 Conn. 490 , 498 (1982).

1993The reason for the disparate levels of proof in two causes of action [adverse possession and prescriptive easement] having virtually identical elements, is that title in the former becomes absolute in the adverse user, while in the latter the adverse user acquires only the right to pass and repass over the prescriptive easement, a much less onerous burden on the property." Schulz v. Syversten, 219 Conn. 81 , 91-92 (1991).

1992Schulz v. Syvertsen, 219 Conn. 81 , 91 ; Sands Associates v. Rios 6 Conn. App. 84 , 87 .

2024Moreover, ‘‘[a] successful adverse possession action results in a legal titleholder forfeiting ownership to an adverse holder without com- pensation. . . . [T]hat is why the elements of adverse possession are stringent.’’ Grace v. Koch, 81 Ohio St. 3d 577 , 580, 692 N.E.2d 1009 (App. 1998). ‘‘[T]he question of whether the elements of an adverse possession claim have been established by clear and convincing evidence is a factual one subject to the clearly erroneous standard of review.’’ Rudder v. Mamanasco Lake Park Assn., Inc., 93 Conn. App. 759 , Page 8 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL 0, 0 10 ,0 0 Co

2024Moreover, ‘‘[a] successful adverse possession action results in a legal titleholder forfeiting ownership to an adverse holder without com- pensation. . . . [T]hat is why the elements of adverse possession are stringent.’’ Grace v. Koch, 81 Ohio St. 3d 577 , 580, 692 N.E.2d 1009 (App. 1998). ‘‘[T]he question of whether the elements of an adverse possession claim have been established by clear and convincing evidence is a factual one subject to the clearly erroneous standard of review.’’ Rudder v. Mamanasco Lake Park Assn., Inc., 93 Conn. App. 759 , Page 8 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL 0, 0 10 ,0 0 Co

2024In evaluating a claim of adverse possession under that demanding stan- dard, ‘‘[e]very presumption is in favor of possession in subordination to the title of the true owner.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Woycik v. Woycik, 13 Conn. App. 518, 522 , 537 A.2d 541 (1988); see also 2 C.J.S. 783, Adverse Possession § 274 (2023) (‘‘[E]very presumption is in favor of the holder of legal title . . . .

2024In evaluating a claim of adverse possession under that demanding stan- dard, ‘‘[e]very presumption is in favor of possession in subordination to the title of the true owner.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Woycik v. Woycik, 13 Conn. App. 518, 522 , 537 A.2d 541 (1988); see also 2 C.J.S. 783, Adverse Possession § 274 (2023) (‘‘[E]very presumption is in favor of the holder of legal title . . . .

2024A trial court’s findings in an adverse possession case, if supported by sufficient evidence, are binding on a reviewing court . . . .’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Skelly v. Brucher, 134 Conn. App. 337, 341 , 38 A.3d 261 (2012); see also Pagano v. Ippoliti, 245 Conn. 640, 654 , 716 A.2d 848 (1998) (‘‘[t]he trial court, having heard the testimony and observed the witnesses, was in a position far supe- rior to ours to judge the evidentiary record as a whole’’); Katz v. Martin, 143 Conn. 215, 217 , 120 A.2d 826 (1956) (‘‘To interfere with the [trial court’s] conclusions would be to substi

2024A trial court’s findings in an adverse possession case, if supported by sufficient evidence, are binding on a reviewing court . . . .’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Skelly v. Brucher, 134 Conn. App. 337, 341 , 38 A.3d 261 (2012); see also Pagano v. Ippoliti, 245 Conn. 640, 654 , 716 A.2d 848 (1998) (‘‘[t]he trial court, having heard the testimony and observed the witnesses, was in a position far supe- rior to ours to judge the evidentiary record as a whole’’); Katz v. Martin, 143 Conn. 215, 217 , 120 A.2d 826 (1956) (‘‘To interfere with the [trial court’s] conclusions would be to substi

2024A trial court’s findings in an adverse possession case, if supported by sufficient evidence, are binding on a reviewing court . . . .’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Skelly v. Brucher, 134 Conn. App. 337, 341 , 38 A.3d 261 (2012); see also Pagano v. Ippoliti, 245 Conn. 640, 654 , 716 A.2d 848 (1998) (‘‘[t]he trial court, having heard the testimony and observed the witnesses, was in a position far supe- rior to ours to judge the evidentiary record as a whole’’); Katz v. Martin, 143 Conn. 215, 217 , 120 A.2d 826 (1956) (‘‘To interfere with the [trial court’s] conclusions would be to substi

2024A trial court’s findings in an adverse possession case, if supported by sufficient evidence, are binding on a reviewing court . . . .’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Skelly v. Brucher, 134 Conn. App. 337, 341 , 38 A.3d 261 (2012); see also Pagano v. Ippoliti, 245 Conn. 640, 654 , 716 A.2d 848 (1998) (‘‘[t]he trial court, having heard the testimony and observed the witnesses, was in a position far supe- rior to ours to judge the evidentiary record as a whole’’); Katz v. Martin, 143 Conn. 215, 217 , 120 A.2d 826 (1956) (‘‘To interfere with the [trial court’s] conclusions would be to substi

2024App. 76, 81 , 957 P.2d 580 (1998) (concluding that ‘‘the contin- uous existence of [a] fence alone is insufficient to put defendants and their predecessors on notice of an adverse possession claim’’ when plaintiff ‘‘did not main- tain the fence, post no-trespassing signs or take any other affirmative steps to put defendants on notice that the fence marked the boundary of his property’’).

2024Moreover, ‘‘[a] successful adverse possession action results in a legal titleholder forfeiting ownership to an adverse holder without com- pensation. . . . [T]hat is why the elements of adverse possession are stringent.’’ Grace v. Koch, 81 Ohio St. 3d 577 , 580, 692 N.E.2d 1009 (App. 1998). ‘‘[T]he question of whether the elements of an adverse possession claim have been established by clear and convincing evidence is a factual one subject to the clearly erroneous standard of review.’’ Rudder v. Mamanasco Lake Park Assn., Inc., 93 Conn. App. 759 , Page 8 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL 0, 0 10 ,0 0 Co

2024Moreover, ‘‘[a] successful adverse possession action results in a legal titleholder forfeiting ownership to an adverse holder without com- pensation. . . . [T]hat is why the elements of adverse possession are stringent.’’ Grace v. Koch, 81 Ohio St. 3d 577 , 580, 692 N.E.2d 1009 (App. 1998). ‘‘[T]he question of whether the elements of an adverse possession claim have been established by clear and convincing evidence is a factual one subject to the clearly erroneous standard of review.’’ Rudder v. Mamanasco Lake Park Assn., Inc., 93 Conn. App. 759 , Page 8 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL 0, 0 10 ,0 0 Co

2022When an appellant challenges the factual findings on which the court’s finding of a lack of probable cause is based, we apply the clearly erroneous standard of review. ‘‘A finding of fact is clearly erroneous when there is no evidence in the record to support it . . . or when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm convic- tion that a mistake has been committed.’’ (Internal quo- tation marks omitted.) Casiraghi v. Casiraghi, 200 Conn. App. 771, 788 , 241 A.3d 717 (2020). ‘‘Because factual findings and credibility d

2016The rule of claim preclusion prevents reassertion of the same claim regard- less of what additional or different evidence or legal theories might be advanced in support of it.’’ (Emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted.) Weiss v. Weiss, 297 Conn. 446, 463 , 998 A.2d 766 (2010).

2016The rule of claim preclusion prevents reassertion of the same claim regard- less of what additional or different evidence or legal theories might be advanced in support of it.’’ (Emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted.) Weiss v. Weiss, 297 Conn. 446, 463 , 998 A.2d 766 (2010).

2012In satisfaction of the “open and visible” prong of an adverse possession claim, “[t]he location and condition of the land must be taken into consideration and the alleged acts of ownership must be understood as directed to those circumstances and conditions.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Lucas v. Crofoot, 95 Conn. 619, 626 , 112 A. 165 (1921).

2012In satisfaction of the “open and visible” prong of an adverse possession claim, “[t]he location and condition of the land must be taken into consideration and the alleged acts of ownership must be understood as directed to those circumstances and conditions.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Lucas v. Crofoot, 95 Conn. 619, 626 , 112 A. 165 (1921).