Conn. Gen. Stat. » Title 47 — LAND AND LAND TITLES · Chapter 821 — Land Titles
Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 47-33f (2026)

Notice of claim filed within forty-year period

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) Any person claiming an interest of any kind in land may preserve and keep effective that interest by recording, during the forty-year period immediately following the effective date of the root of title of the person whose record title would otherwise be marketable, a notice in writing, duly verified by oath, setting forth the nature of the claim. No disability or lack of knowledge of any kind on the part of anyone suspends the running of the forty-year period. Such notice may be recorded by the claimant or by any other person acting on behalf of any claimant who is: (1) Under a disability, (2) unable to assert a claim on his own behalf or (3) one of a class, but whose identity cannot be established or is uncertain at the time of filing such notice of claim for record.

(b) If the same record owner of any possessory interest in land has been in possession of that land continuously for a period of forty years or more, during which period no title transaction with respect to the interest appears of record in his chain of title and no notice has been recorded by him or on his behalf as provided in subsection (a) of this section, and the possession continues to the time when marketability is being determined, that period of possession shall be deemed equivalent to the recording of the notice immediately preceding the termination of the forty-year period described in subsection (a) of this section.

(1967, P.A. 553, S. 5; 1969, P.A. 509, S. 4; P.A. 79-602, S. 46.)

History: 1969 act replaced references to 60-year period with 40-year period throughout section; P.A. 79-602 made minor changes in wording but no substantive changes.

Cited. 171 C. 149; 183 C. 59; 219 C. 81; 239 C. 199.

Cited. 3 CA 550; 44 CA 683; 46 CA 525.

Cited. 34 CS 31.

(Return to Chapter
Table of Contents)		 (Return to
List of Chapters)		 (Return to
List of Titles)

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1981–2022 · leading case: Dowling v. Heirs of Bond, 345 Conn. 119 (Conn. 2022).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Dowling v. Heirs of Bond, 345 Conn. 119 (Conn. 2022). · cites it 10× “with a draft memoran- dum indicating that there was a ‘‘risk’’ that the defen- dant would rely on the Marketable Title Act (MTA), General Statutes § 47-33b et seq.,10 to invalidate the plaintiff’s claim of adverse possession and recommend- ing that, pursuant to General Statutes…”
Schulz v. Syvertsen, 591 A.2d 804 (Conn. 1991). · cites it 6× “, to the procedural circumstances of this case for the following reasons: On the morning of trial, the trial court sustained the plaintiffs’ objection to the Syvertsens’ attempt to interpose a special defense, filed in court the previous day, that the plaintiffs had failed to…”
Il Giardino, LLC v. Belle Haven Land Co., 757 A.2d 1103 (Conn. 2000). · cites it 5× “” General Statutes § 47-33f provides: “Notice of claim filed within forty-year period, (a) Any person claiming an interest of any kind in land may preserve and keep effective that interest by recording, during the forty-year period immediately following the effective date of the…”
Nash v. Stevens, 71 A.3d 635 (Conn. App. Ct. 2013). · cites it 4× “The dissent takes the view that this concern is alleviated by General Statutes § 47-33f. We note that burdening the title to property for forty years runs contrary to the purpose of § 47-33a, which is, in part, to make property interests marketable in a reasonable amount of time.”
Mizla v. Depalo, 438 A.2d 820 (Conn. 1981). · cites it 4× “The plaintiff challenged, in the first count of his complaint, 1 the validity of a notice of claim filed in the Norwich land records by the defendants pursuant to General Statutes § 47-33f (a). 2 Both parties filed motions *61 for summary judgment on this issue.”
Mannweiler v. LaFlamme, 781 A.2d 497 (Conn. App. Ct. 2001). · cites it 4× “See General Statutes § 47-33f. 4 The trial court found that the special defense of the act did not apply and rendered judgment for the plaintiffs.”
Vill. Apts., LLC v. Ward, 152 A.3d 76 (Conn. App. Ct. 2016). “created prior to the root of title are not sufficient to preserve them, unless specific identification is made therein of a recorded title transaction which creates the easement, use restriction or other interest; (2) all interests preserved by the recording of proper notice or…”
Johnson v. Sourignamath, 877 A.2d 891 (Conn. App. Ct. 2005). · cites it 2× “If, however, the right-of-way originally was created by operation of law or by an unrecorded instrument, it still necessarily was created preroot, and the plaintiffs would have had to file a sworn notice pursuant to General Statutes § 47-33f to preserve the way.”
Maluccio v. E. Lyme Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 166 A.3d 69 (Conn. App. Ct. 2017). · cites it 4× “No rights in the parcel were deeded to lot purchasers in the development, and no lot owner has filed a notice of claim as to any rights in the parcel pursuant to General Statutes § 47-33f. 1 Following years of unpaid taxes on the parcel, it became the subject of a statutory tax…”
— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 47-33f(a) — 1 case
Maluccio v. E. Lyme Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 166 A.3d 69 (Conn. App. Ct. 2017). “No rights in the parcel were deeded to lot purchasers in the development, and no lot owner has filed a notice of claim as to any rights in the parcel pursuant to General Statutes § 47-33f. 1 Following years of unpaid taxes on the parcel, it became the subject of a statutory tax…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.