Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-570 (2026)

Action for malicious erection of structure

✓ current as of May 2026

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

An action may be maintained by the proprietor of any land against the owner or lessee of land adjacent, who maliciously erects any structure thereon, with intent to annoy or injure the plaintiff in his use or disposition of his land.

(1949 Rev., S. 8311.)

See Sec. 52-480 re injunction against malicious erection of structure.

What constitutes “malice” and evidence of it; 75 C. 424; a question of fact ordinarily not reviewable. 82 C. 290. Court rejected defendant's argument that the effect of this section and Sec. 52-480 is to create for plaintiff an unlawful visual easement across defendant's land. 174 C. 29.

Cited. 43 CA 1; 46 CA 164.

Elements necessary to state a cause of action under section enumerated. 21 CS 110. Testimony credible that fence was erected, in part, for legitimate purpose of safeguarding children and dogs; essential elements of cause of action under section are (1) structure erected on defendant's land, (2) malicious erection of structure, (3) intent to injure enjoyment of adjacent landowner's land by erection of structure, (4) impairment of value of adjacent land because of structure, (5) structure is useless to defendant, and (6) enjoyment of adjacent landowner's land is in fact impaired. 51 CS 399.

Provides legal remedy for structures erected with intention to annoy and injure plaintiff's use of premises. 6 Conn. Cir. Ct. 427, 428.

(Return to Chapter
Table of Contents)

(Return to
List of Chapters)

(Return to
List of Titles)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 26 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1965–2025 · leading case: Geiger v. Carey, 154 A.3d 1093 (Conn. App. Ct. 2017).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Geiger v. Carey, 154 A.3d 1093 (Conn. App. Ct. 2017). · cites it 12× “The complaint sounded in three counts: (1) trespass; (2) violation of Connecticut's tree cutting statute, pursuant to General Statutes § 52-560 ; and (3) malicious erection of a structure, pursuant to General Statutes § 52-570. The defendant brought a counterclaim against the…”

Il Giardino, LLC v. Belle Haven Land Co., 757 A.2d 1103 (Conn. 2000). · cites it 4× “” In the second count of the amended complaint, the plaintiff alleged that the actions described in the allegations of count one “were committed maliciously and with the intent to annoy or injure the plaintiff in its use or disposition of the [plaintiffs] parcel,” in violation…”

Lord v. Mansfield, 717 A.2d 267 (Conn. App. Ct. 1998). · cites it 5× “After the trial had concluded and the parties had fully briefed the issues, the plaintiff filed a motion requesting permission to amend her complaint to add a third count claiming a prescriptive easement and a fourth count alleging that a fence erected by the defendants violated…”

Kinsale, LLC v. Tombari, 897 A.2d 646 (Conn. App. Ct. 2006). · cites it 4× “The court concluded that there was probable cause to believe *648 that the plaintiffs will prevail on their nuisance claim and on their claim for malicious erection of a structure in violation of General Statutes § 52-570. The court found that the defendants' conduct had the…”

Berube v. Nagle, 841 A.2d 724 (Conn. App. Ct. 2004). · cites it 4× “Section 52-570 provides: “An action may be maintained by the proprietor of any land against the owner or lessee of land adjacent, who maliciously erects any structure thereon, with intent to annoy or injure the plaintiff in his use or disposition of his land.”

Davis v. Prop. Owners Assn. at Moodus Lake Shores, Inc., 193 A.3d 1245 (Conn. App. Ct. 2018). · cites it 6× “The plaintiffs sought relief pursuant to General Statutes §§ 52-570 4 and 52-480." 5 In counts six through nine, the plaintiffs brought causes of action seeking monetary damages from the defendants.”

Schlichting v. Cotter, 952 A.2d 73 (Conn. App. Ct. 2008). · cites it 2× “These acts resulted in the plaintiffs filing an action sounding in adverse possession, seeking to quiet title in the plaintiff, and malicious erection of a structure in violation of General Statutes § 52-570. After a trial to the court, the court issued a memorandum of decision…”

Sastrom v. Mullaney, 945 A.2d 442 (Conn. 2008). · cites it 2× “” See General Statutes § 52-570 (b). 7 Indeed the petitioner seems to concede this point in his brief: “Borden could only, and did only, testify as to his diagnosis of mental state or condition.”

Johnson v. State, 647 A.2d 373 (Conn. App. Ct. 1994). · cites it 2× “Wallace lived three or four blocks from the crime scene at the time of the robbery. He has since moved to New York City, but his family remains in the neighborhood.”

Dalton v. Bua, 822 A.2d 392 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2003). · cites it 4× “General Statutes § 52-570 provides that “[a]n action may be maintained by the proprietor of any land against the owner or lessee of land adjacent, who maliciously erects any structure thereon, with intent to annoy or injure the plaintiff in his use or disposition of his land.”

Chase & Chase, LLC v. Waterbury Realty, LLC, 50 A.3d 968 (Conn. App. Ct. 2012). · cites it 2× “” General Statutes § 52-570 provides: “An action may be maintained by the proprietor of any land against the owner or lessee of land adjacent, who maliciously erects any structure thereon, with intent to annoy or injure the plaintiff in his use or disposition of his land.”

Jacobs v. Fazzano, 757 A.2d 1215 (Conn. App. Ct. 2000). “Despite the fact that the trial court concluded that the petitioner had not demonstrated that he was entitled to a new trial under the first two criteria, it nevertheless went on and decided that he was entitled to a new trial under the third criterion of § 52-570, that of…”

Show all 26 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.