Frech v. Piontkowski
994 A.2d 84 (2010) 296 Conn. 43 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A prescriptive easement for recreational purposes may be acquired over a nonnavigable, artificial body of water in the same manner as over land, by demonstrating a use that is open, visible, continuous, and uninterrupted for fifteen years under a claim of right.
Facts:
- In 1890, a dam was erected on property now owned by the defendants, Carl F. Piontkowski et al., which created the Obed Heights Reservoir, an artificial body of water.
- The defendants own the reservoir and all the land underneath it.
- Plaintiff Teresa A. Freeh purchased her property, lot 10, abutting the reservoir in 1977.
- The predecessors in title to plaintiffs Kenneth and Amy Andersen purchased their property, lot 11, abutting the reservoir in 1979.
- For over twenty-five years, the plaintiffs and their predecessors in title used the entire reservoir for recreational purposes, including boating, swimming, fishing, and ice-skating.
- The plaintiffs' predecessors built a sandy beach on lot 11, and the Freeh family placed wooden pallets on lot 10 to facilitate boat access.
- The plaintiffs and their predecessors never sought or received permission from the defendants to use the reservoir.
- When the defendants placed "No Trespassing" signs in the water near the plaintiffs' properties, the plaintiffs removed the signs.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiffs, Teresa A. Freeh and the Andersens, filed an action in the Connecticut trial court against the defendants, Carl F. Piontkowski et al., to establish a prescriptive easement over the defendants' reservoir.
- The defendants filed a counterclaim to quiet title and for trespass.
- After a trial, the court rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, finding they had acquired a prescriptive easement for recreational use and held title to the land up to the water's edge.
- The defendants (appellants) appealed the trial court's judgment to the Appellate Court.
- The Supreme Court of Connecticut transferred the appeal to itself before the Appellate Court could hear it.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Connecticut law permit an abutting landowner to acquire a prescriptive easement for recreational purposes over a nonnavigable, artificial body of water?
Opinions:
Majority - McLachlan, J.
Yes. An abutting landowner may acquire a prescriptive easement for recreational purposes over a nonnavigable, artificial body of water. The court held that property rights in an artificial, nonnavigable body of water are governed by the same principles that govern a parcel of land, not by special riparian or littoral rules. Citing its precedent in Ace Equipment Sales, Inc. v. Buccino, the court reasoned that because the defendants own the land under the reservoir, title is governed by ordinary real estate principles, making a prescriptive easement legally possible. The court rejected the defendants' argument that recreational use is too intermittent to provide sufficient notice, stating that whether the use was open and visible is a question of fact, not a legal bar. It also dismissed the argument that the burden of maintaining the dam should prevent the easement's creation, clarifying that this concern relates to the scope of an easement, not its initial acquisition.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies that artificial bodies of water are treated as ordinary real estate for the purposes of prescriptive rights, distinguishing them from natural watercourses that may be subject to riparian law. It establishes a significant precedent that recreational use, even if seasonal, can satisfy the 'continuous' element required for a prescriptive easement, provided the use is consistent with the nature of the right being claimed. This ruling impacts owners of private ponds and lakes by affirming that their failure to object to long-term, open recreational use by neighbors can result in the loss of their right to exclude them. It places the burden on such landowners to be vigilant and take legally sufficient steps to interrupt adverse use if they wish to preserve their property rights.
Unlock the full brief for Frech v. Piontkowski