Sections
47-33b to
47-33l, inclusive, shall not be applied to bar any lessor or successor of the lessor as a reversioner of the right to possession on the expiration of any lease or to bar or extinguish any easement or interest in the nature of an easement, or any rights granted, excepted or reserved by the instrument creating such easement or interest, including any right for future use, if (1) the existence of such easement or interest is evidenced by the location beneath, upon or above any part of the land described in such instrument of any pipe, valve, road, wire, cable, conduit, duct, sewer, track, hole, tower or other physical facility and whether or not the existence of such facility is observable, or to bar, extinguish or otherwise affect any interest of the United States, of this state or any political subdivision thereof, of any public service company as defined in section
16-1 or of any natural gas company, or (2) such easement or interest is a conservation restriction, as defined in section
47-42a, that is held by a land trust or nonprofit organization.
(1967, P.A. 553, S. 7; P.A. 78-331, S. 18, 58; P.A. 01-118, S. 3.)
History: P.A. 78-331 corrected misspelling, substituting “excepted” for “accepted”; P.A. 01-118 made technical changes for purposes of gender neutrality and added provisions re exception for easements or interests that are conservation restrictions and are held by a land trust or nonprofit organization.
Cited. 183 C. 59; 219 C. 81; 239 C. 199. Trial court properly concluded that pursuant to Subdiv. (1), the easement over plaintiff's property as of 1996 deed was limited to the fixed location of 3 existing conduits, which constituted partial exercise of the easement, and that because plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence of damages resulting from partial encumbrance of the property, defendants were entitled to a directed verdict. 270 C. 487.
Cited. 3 CA 550; 44 CA 683; 46 CA 525. Section's use of “other physical facility” refers to those physical objects that evidence an easement that themselves effectuate the easement itself and includes all of the items enumerated in the section, but does not include dissimilar items that may be found on a property that are not set forth in the section or otherwise within the class of those items, which are only, at best, mere indirect, possible indicators of an easement. 169 CA 653.
Cited. 34 CS 31.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
8
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1991–2024 · leading case:
Coughlin v. Anderson, 853 A.2d 460 (Conn. 2004).
Coughlin v. Anderson, 853 A.2d 460 (Conn. 2004).
· cites it 12× “11 Although the defendants conceded that the three conduits that were in existence as of October 1, 1996, were valid pursuant to General Statutes § 47-33h (l), 12 they claimed that a *496 directed verdict in their favor was proper because the preserved conduits constituted a…”
Vill. Apts., LLC v. Ward, 152 A.3d 76 (Conn. App. Ct. 2016).
· cites it 23× “, extinguished the right-of-way because it was not preserved in the roots of title of the parties as required by the act and did not meet the apparent easement exceptions in General Statutes § 47-33h. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court erred in finding that the act…”
Schulz v. Syvertsen, 591 A.2d 804 (Conn. 1991).
· cites it 3× “” General Statutes § 47-33h provides: “Sections 47-33b to 47-33Í, inclusive, shall not be applied to .”
Walters v. Servidio, 320 A.3d 1008 (Conn. App. Ct. 2024).
· cites it 4× “d A is a dead end starting at the defendants’ driveway and the southern portion of Road A is a dead end starting at the southernmost part of the disputed area; furthermore, on the basis of the record, the court’s finding that there was no physical manifestation of a road was not…”
Simonds v. Shaw, 691 A.2d 1102 (Conn. App. Ct. 1997).
· cites it 4× “Moreover, General Statutes § 47-33h 6 expressly exempts easements from being extinguished by the Marketability of Title Act where the easement is evidenced by a road or other structure.”
Galvin v. Gaffney, 24 F. Supp. 2d 223 (D. Conn. 1998).
· cites it 3× “Conn. Gen.Stat. § 47-33h 6 “expressly exempts easements from being extinguished by the Marketability of Title Act where the easement is evidenced by a road or other structure.”
Johnson v. Sourignamath, 877 A.2d 891 (Conn. App. Ct. 2005).
· cites it 2× “In their appellate brief, the plaintiffs argue cursorily that another section of the act that creates an exception from extinguishment for “apparent easements”; General Statutes § 47-33d (5); is applicable.”
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.