Emerald Ridge Owners Assoc. v. Thornton, No. Cv 97-0479642s (Jan. 14, 1998)

Connecticut Superior Court

Emerald Ridge Owners Assoc. v. Thornton, No. Cv 97-0479642s (Jan. 14, 1998)

1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 3

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedJanuary 14, 1998

DocketNo. CV 97-0479642S

StatusUnpublished

This text of 1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 3 (Emerald Ridge Owners Assoc. v. Thornton, No. Cv 97-0479642s (Jan. 14, 1998)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Superior Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Emerald Ridge Owners Assoc. v. Thornton, No. Cv 97-0479642s (Jan. 14, 1998), 1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 3 (Colo. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]MEMORANDUM OF DECISION The issue presented by the plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment is,

-Is the Emerald Ridge subdivision subject to the provisions of the Common Interest Ownership Act, Conn. Gen Stat. § 47-200 et. seq.?

-The documents relied on by plaintiff are a Declaration of Protective Covenants and Easements, dated June 8, 1988 and recorded in Vol. 447, page 711 of the Southington Land Records and a Declaration of Reciprocal Easements, Easements and Maintenance Arrangement, dated June 8, 1988 and CT Page 4 recorded in Vol. 477, page 714 of the Southington Land Records.

The court concurs with the position taken by the defendants that the documents cited do not serve to create a common interest community under the provisions of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 47-200 et. seq., in that they do not meet the requirements of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 47-220 and also, they do not meet the definitional section Conn. Gen. Stat. § 47-202.

Accordingly, the plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment is denied.

ROBERT F. STENGEL JUDGE, SUPERIOR COURT

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI