Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 47-37 (2026)

When acquired by adverse use

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

No person may acquire a right-of-way or any other easement from, in, upon or over the land of another, by the adverse use or enjoyment thereof, unless the use has been continued uninterrupted for fifteen years.

(1949 Rev., S. 7130; P.A. 79-602, S. 56.)

History: P.A. 79-602 substituted “may” for “shall” and “the” for “such” where appearing.

No user less than 15 years can avail. 69 C. 263. Personal rights-of-way in this state may not be established by local custom. 78 C. 133. Whether user is under license or under claim of right is a question of fact. Id., 156. City may acquire right to maintain sewer; imputing knowledge of it to landowner. 81 C. 137. Use may originate in oral agreement or void deed; effect of claimant becoming executor of owner of fee. 90 C. 241. Where an individual use is in common with a public use, there must have been a use of the way by the individual distinctive from that of the general public. 134 C. 576. Trial court erred in denying plaintiff injunctive relief. 136 C. 277. No right can be acquired unless use defines its bounds with reasonable certainty. Id., 398. User by plaintiff's tenants inures to benefit of lessor; user by defendants not inconsistent with plaintiff's right. 137 C. 586. Where use is permissive, it cannot be under a claim of right. 139 C. 352. To acquire a right-of-way by prescription, there must be a user which is open, visible, continuous and uninterrupted for 15 years and made under a claim of right. 142 C. 296. Cited. Id., 708. Essential elements of a right-of-way by prescription are a use which is (1) open and visible, (2) continuous and uninterrupted for 15 years, (3) engaged in under a claim of right. 143 C. 40. Where defendant had maintained mooring stakes for over 30 years along river frontage of plaintiff's property and thereafter erected floating docks also along plaintiff's property, held defendant had not sustained burden of proving continuity of user to acquire by prescription enough of plaintiff's littoral rights to justify interference created by docks. 149 C. 560. Plaintiff acquired no prescriptive right where owner gave him permission of use; in absence of finding when use began, no prescriptive rights can be acquired. 151 C. 458. Riparian owner's rights to natural flow of water of stream through his land infringed by New London's expansion of its water reservoir in a drought held to entitle plaintiff to nominal damages and, unless city acquired water rights by eminent domain in a reasonable time, to an injunction of further diversion by the city. 157 C. 9. Cited. 165 C. 457; 175 C. 535; 183 C. 289; 186 C. 229; 190 C. 163; Id., 184; 196 C. 614; 227 C. 495. Permanent injunction precluded plaintiff's asserting valid claim of right to use private way over defendant's property. 244 C. 583. In order to acquire a prescriptive easement, 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. 276 C. 782. Evidence was sufficient to establish that plaintiff's use of right-of-way was adverse, notorious and continuous and sufficient to gain legal right and title. 294 C. 418. Plaintiffs acquired prescriptive easement for recreational use of nonnavigable, artificial body of water through uninterrupted and continuous use for at least 15 years, and proof of daily or constant use was not necessary to acquire this type of easement. 296 C. 43.

Cited. 1 CA 341; Id., 373; 3 CA 639; 7 CA 252; 8 CA 203; 20 CA 298; Id., 380; 32 CA 746; 33 CA 799; 37 CA 822; 39 CA 143; 44 CA 683; 46 CA 164. Although plaintiff did not have burden of proving absence of permission, plaintiff did have burden of proving that she and her predecessors adversely used the driveway under a claim or right. 83 CA 826. Trial court finding that underground utility lines placed outside the deeded utility easement were open and visible where plaintiffs had knowledge of parameters of easement and sewer cleanouts were visible outside those parameters was not clearly erroneous. 92 CA 172. Trial court properly applied facts found to requirements of section in determining that necessary elements for establishing an easement by prescription had been met by a preponderance of the evidence and, in doing so, properly concluded plaintiff satisfied her burden of proof to establish use of driveway under a claim of right by offering testimony that neither she nor her predecessors asked for or were given permission to use defendant's driveway, but rather had used it under belief that it was their right to do so. 139 CA 813.

Cited. 15 CS 467. Use for 28 years in disregard of a no trespassing sign established a right-of-way. 19 CS 220. Requirements for prescriptive easement discussed. 45 CS 515.

(Return to Chapter
Table of Contents)

(Return to
List of Chapters)

(Return to
List of Titles)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 64 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1959–2025 · leading case: Robert S. Weiss & Co. v. Mullins, 495 A.2d 1006 (Conn. 1985).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Robert S. Weiss & Co. v. Mullins, 495 A.2d 1006 (Conn. 1985). · cites it 8× “On the basis of these facts, the court held that the plaintiff had satisfied the applicable requirements of General Statutes § 47-37, 1 and that it was therefore entitled to a right-of-way over the defendants’ driveway.”

Pointina Beach Assoc., Inc. v. Stella, 471 A.2d 970 (Conn. App. Ct. 1983). · cites it 10× “The issue in this case is whether the trial court erred in finding that the plaintiff failed to prove a prescriptive easement to use beach property under General Statutes § 47-37. 1 The plaintiff beach association brought suit against two of its members whose beach property…”

Crandall v. Gould, 711 A.2d 682 (Conn. 1998). · cites it 9× “The dispositive issue in this certified appeal is whether the plaintiffs’ use of a private way across the defendants’ property occurred under a claim of right so as to allow the plaintiffs to acquire an easement by adverse use across the defendants’ property pursuant to General…”

Smith v. Muellner, 932 A.2d 382 (Conn. 2007). · cites it 4× “Although the acts necessary to extinguish an easement by prescription are described in the law similarly to those necessary to acquire an easement by prescription, extinguishment and acquisition differ fundamentally such that a given act may be considered adverse for purposes of…”

McBurney v. Cirillo, 889 A.2d 759 (Conn. 2006). · cites it 4× “In regard to the evidence presented, the court acknowledged that due to the passage of time, “there was a shortage of specific dates, events or photographs of such activity in the earlier years,” but the court found that the defendants had produced sufficient evidence of usage…”

Brander v. Stoddard, 164 A.3d 889 (Conn. App. Ct. 2017). · cites it 3× “Prescriptive Easement General Statutes § 47-37 provides: "No person may acquire a right-of-way or any other easement from, in, upon or over the land of another, by the adverse use or enjoyment thereof, unless the use has been continued uninterrupted for fifteen years.”

Stiefel v. Lindemann, 638 A.2d 642 (Conn. App. Ct. 1994). · cites it 6× “In discussing the first special defense, the acquisition of the easement by deed, how *810 ever, the trial court stated some facts that are relevant to whether an easement by prescription or by necessity was created.”

Swenson v. Dittner, 439 A.2d 334 (Conn. 1981). · cites it 4× “General Statutes § 47-37; Mihalczo v. Woodmont, 175 Conn.”

Stefanoni v. Duncan, 883 A.2d 1271 (Conn. App. Ct. 2005). · cites it 6× ““To establish an easement by prescription in accordance with General Statutes § 47-37, 9 [the party claiming to have acquired it] must prove the necessary elements by a preponderance of the evidence.”

Hoffman Fuel Co. v. Elliott, 789 A.2d 1149 (Conn. App. Ct. 2002). · cites it 4× “*277 To establish an easement by prescription in accordance with General Statutes § 47-37, 1 the plaintiff must prove the necessary elements by a preponderance of the evidence.”

Mihalczo v. Borough of Woodmont, 400 A.2d 270 (Conn. 1978). · cites it 4× “ose assignments of error which the defendants have raised in their brief, 1 viz: whether the seawall-walkway was within the plaintiff’s property lines; whether she sustained her burden of proof that it “was within her southerly boundary without establishing the mean high-water…”

Boccanfuso v. Conner, 873 A.2d 208 (Conn. App. Ct. 2005). · cites it 2× “22 (1936); see also General Statutes § 47-37. These elements must be proven by a fair preponderance of the evidence.”

Show all 64 citing cases →

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.