Lavin v. Scascitelli

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Lavin v. Scascitelli

372 A.2d 127, 172 Conn. 8, 1976 Conn. LEXIS 860

CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut

DecidedNovember 16, 1976

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 372 A.2d 127 (Lavin v. Scascitelli) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Connecticut primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lavin v. Scascitelli, 372 A.2d 127, 172 Conn. 8, 1976 Conn. LEXIS 860 (Colo. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This action was brought by the plaintiffs for trespass and for an injunction to restrain the defendants from encroaching on the land of the plaintiffs. The defendants filed a cross complaint claiming title by adverse possession to the contested four-foot area along the boundary [9]*9of the property of the parties. The court rendered judgment for the defendants on the complaint and cross eomplaint, finding that the defendants had acquired ownership of the disputed area by adverse possession. It also found that the defendants had failed to prove that they were entitled to any damages.

The proof necessary to establish title by adverse possession is well settled. See Wadsworth Realty Co. v. Sundberg, 165 Conn. 457, 462, 338 A.2d 470; Robinson v. Myers, 156 Conn. 510, 517, 244 A.2d 385. As we said in the Wadsworth case (p. 463), “[i]n the final analysis, whether possession is adverse is a question of fact for the trier.”

The court’s finding of fact is not subject to correction and the facts amply support the court’s conclusion that the defendants and their predecessors in title had used the disputed area “for more than fifteen years openly, visibly, notoriously, adversely, exclusively, continuously, uninterruptedly and under a claim of right.”

There is no error.

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

Per Curiam.

This action was brought by the plaintiffs for trespass and for an injunction to restrain the defendants from encroaching on the land of the plaintiffs. The defendants filed a cross complaint claiming title by adverse possession to the contested four-foot area along the boundary [9]*9of the property of the parties. The court rendered judgment for the defendants on the complaint and cross eomplaint, finding that the defendants had acquired ownership of the disputed area by adverse possession. It also found that the defendants had failed to prove that they were entitled to any damages.

The proof necessary to establish title by adverse possession is well settled. See Wadsworth Realty Co. v. Sundberg, 165 Conn. 457, 462, 338 A.2d 470; Robinson v. Myers, 156 Conn. 510, 517, 244 A.2d 385. As we said in the Wadsworth case (p. 463), “[i]n the final analysis, whether possession is adverse is a question of fact for the trier.”

The court’s finding of fact is not subject to correction and the facts amply support the court’s conclusion that the defendants and their predecessors in title had used the disputed area “for more than fifteen years openly, visibly, notoriously, adversely, exclusively, continuously, uninterruptedly and under a claim of right.”

There is no error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

372 A.2d 127, 172 Conn. 8, 1976 Conn. LEXIS 860, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lavin-v-scascitelli-conn-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack