unity of title doctrine in Connecticut

18 Connecticut opinions name it 3 courts 1988–2011 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Connecticut courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (6)

Case	Followed	Cited
Branch v. Occhionerogreen conn · 1996 · cited in 2 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 1998–1998 2 sentences 1998See also Branch v. Occhionero , supra, 239 Conn. at 202 n. 4 (citing and quoting the Court's prior decision in Carbone v. Viglotti , supra, for the proposition that the doctrine would not be reconsidered until an appropriate case requiring its reconsideration was presented). 1998See also Branch v. Occhionero , supra , 239 Conn. at 202 n. 4 (citing and quoting the Court's prior decision in Carbone v. Vigliotti , supra , for the proposition that the doctrine would not be reconsidered until an appropriate case requiring its reconsideration was presented).	2	2
Willard v. First Church of Christ, Scientistgreen cal · 1972 · cited in 2 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 1992–1998 2 sentences 1998See, e.g., Willard v. First Church of Christ, Scientist , 7 Cal.3d 473 , 498 P.2d 987 , 102 Cal.Rptr. 987 (1972); Townsend v. Cable , 378 S.W.2d 806 , 808 (Ky. 1964); Garza v. Grayson , 255 Or. 413 , 467 P.2d 960 (1970). 1998See, e.g., Willard v. First Church of Christ, Scientist , 7 Cal.3d 473 , 498 P.2d 987 , 102 Cal.Rptr. 987 (1972); Townsend v. Cable , 378 S.W.2d 806 , 808 (Ky. 1964); Garza v. Grayson , 255 Or. 413 , 467 P.2d 960 (1970).	2	2
Carbone v. Vigliottigreen conn · 1992 · cited in 2 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 1993–1994 2 sentences 1994See Carbone v. Vigliotti, 222 Conn. 216 (1992); Dean v. Riley, 31 Conn. App. 87 (1993). 1993See Carbone v. Vigliotti, 222 Conn. 216, 224 , 610 A.2d 565 (1992).	2	2
Curtin v. Franchettigreen conn · 1968 · cited in 6 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 1988–2011 2 sentences 2011In Bolan, our Supreme Court abolished the unity of title doctrine adopted originally in Curtin v. Franchetti, 156 Conn. 387, 389 , 242 A.2d 725 (1968). 2011In Bolan, our Supreme Court abolished the unity of title doctrine adopted originally in Curtin v. Franchetti, 156 Conn. 387, 389 , 242 A.2d 725 (1968).	1	6
Townsend v. Cablegreen kyctapphigh · 1964 · cited in 2 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 1992–1998 2 sentences 1998See, e.g., Willard v. First Church of Christ, Scientist , 7 Cal.3d 473 , 498 P.2d 987 , 102 Cal.Rptr. 987 (1972); Townsend v. Cable , 378 S.W.2d 806 , 808 (Ky. 1964); Garza v. Grayson , 255 Or. 413 , 467 P.2d 960 (1970). 1992See, e.g., Willard v. First Church of Christ, Scientist, 7 Cal. 3d 473 , 498 P.2d 987 , 102 Cal. Rptr. 987 (1972); Townsend v. Cable, 378 S.W.2d 806, 808 (Ky. 1964); Garza v. Grayson, 255 Or. 413 , 467 P.2d 960 (1970).	1	2
Powers v. Olsongreen conn · 2000 · cited in 1 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2000–2000 2 sentences 2000The court, however, refused to apply that doctrine, which at the time was controlling decisional law, deeming it “archaic.” After the court’s judgment, Bolan v. Avalon Farms Property Owners Assn., Inc., 250 Conn. 135 , 735 A.2d 798 (1999) (en banc), held that the doctrine should be abandoned in cases involving easements; see also Powers v. Olson, 252 Conn. 98, 109 , 742 A.2d 799 (2000). 2000The court, however, refused to apply that doctrine, which at the time was controlling decisional law, deeming it “archaic.” After the court’s judgment, Bolan v. Avalon Farms Property Owners Assn., Inc., 250 Conn. 135 , 735 A.2d 798 (1999) (en banc), held that the doctrine should be abandoned in cases involving easements; see also Powers v. Olson, 252 Conn. 98, 109 , 742 A.2d 799 (2000).	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Connecticut. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (7)

Case	Cited	Years
Bolan v. Avalon Farms Property Owners Ass'n green conn · 1999 2 sentences 2011Additionally, the court reasoned that, given the Supreme Court’s decision in Bolan v. Avalon Farms Property Owners Assn., Inc., supra, 250 Conn. 135 , the fact that WTiite Oak, as the express beneficiary of the right-of-way in the 1967 deed, did not own parcel one was not dispositive given Connecticut’s abolition of the unity of title doctrine. 2008Specifically, the plaintiff argues that the court improperly applied the unity of title doctrine in this case, which, he argues, the Supreme Court specifically abandoned in Bolan v. Avalon Farms Property Owners Assn., Inc., 250 Conn. 135, 144-45 , 735 A.2d 798 (1999) (en banc).	10	2000–2011
Stankiewicz v. Miami Beach Assn., Inc. green conn · 1983 2 sentences 1998This is so because in Stankiewicz v. Miami Beach Assoc., Inc., supra, 191 Conn. at 170 , our Supreme Court explicitly held that the unity-of-title doctrine applies to implied easements as well as to express easements. 1998This is so because in Stankiewicz v. Miami Beach Assoc., Inc. , supra , 191 Conn. at 170 , our Supreme Court explicitly held that the unity-of-title doctrine applies to implied easements as well as to express easements.	4	1988–1998
Ozyck v. D'Atri green conn · 1988 2 sentences 1998Thus, in Ozyck v. CT Page 12716 D'Atri , 206 Conn. 473 , 479 , 538 A.2d 697 (1988), the Court observed: We note that the unity of title doctrine has fallen into disfavor with contemporary commentators as an obsolete vestige of feudalism that frustrates the intentions of the grantor. 1998Thus, in Ozyck v. CT Page 12716 D'Atri , 206 Conn. 473 , 479 , 538 A.2d 697 (1988), the Court observed: We note that the unity of title doctrine has fallen into disfavor with contemporary commentators as an obsolete vestige of feudalism that frustrates the intentions of the grantor.	4	1994–1998
Garza v. Grayson green or · 1970 2 sentences 1998See, e.g., Willard v. First Church of Christ, Scientist , 7 Cal.3d 473 , 498 P.2d 987 , 102 Cal.Rptr. 987 (1972); Townsend v. Cable , 378 S.W.2d 806 , 808 (Ky. 1964); Garza v. Grayson , 255 Or. 413 , 467 P.2d 960 (1970). 1998See, e.g., Willard v. First Church of Christ, Scientist , 7 Cal.3d 473 , 498 P.2d 987 , 102 Cal.Rptr. 987 (1972); Townsend v. Cable , 378 S.W.2d 806 , 808 (Ky. 1964); Garza v. Grayson , 255 Or. 413 , 467 P.2d 960 (1970).	2	1992–1998
Dean v. Riley green connappct · 1993 1 sentence 1994See Carbone v. Vigliotti, 222 Conn. 216 (1992); Dean v. Riley, 31 Conn. App. 87 (1993).	1	1994–1994
Hartford National Bank & Trust Co. v. Harvey neutral conn · 1956 2 sentences 1988For example, in Hartford National Bank & Trust Co. v. Harvey, 143 Conn. 233, 243 , 121 A.2d 276 (1956), a will construction case, we said: “In the field of testamentary construction, precedents are usually inconclusive, since the same or substantially similar expressions seldom occur in different wills.” In contrast, however, when the case before us involves, as Curtin does, the doctrine of unity of title, obviously the matter is quite the contrary. 1988For example, in Hartford National Bank & Trust Co. v. Harvey, 143 Conn. 233, 243 , 121 A.2d 276 (1956), a will construction case, we said: “In the field of testamentary construction, precedents are usually inconclusive, since the same or substantially similar expressions seldom occur in different wills.” In contrast, however, when the case before us involves, as Curtin does, the doctrine of unity of title, obviously the matter is quite the contrary.	1	1988–1988
Broadway Bank & Trust Co. v. Longley green conn · 1933 2 sentences 1988In Broadway Bank & Trust Co. v. Longley, 116 Conn. 557, 560-62 , 165 A. 800 (1933), this court questioned the long-standing common law rule followed in earlier decisions that a part payment by one joint debtor will toll the running of the statute of limitations as to the other, but did not resolve the issue. 1988In Broadway Bank & Trust Co. v. Longley, 116 Conn. 557, 560-62 , 165 A. 800 (1933), this court questioned the long-standing common law rule followed in earlier decisions that a part payment by one joint debtor will toll the running of the statute of limitations as to the other, but did not resolve the issue.	1	1988–1988

Statutes the citing opinions construe

CT § Conn. Gen. Stat. § 51-199 (4) CT § Conn. Gen. Stat. § 47-37 (3)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

Where else courts name it

CT 18 (1988–2011) OH 4 (2009–2023)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check

Your account

Appearance