Magun v. Bombaci
40 Conn. Super. Ct. 269, 40 Conn. Supp. 269, 492 A.2d 235 (1985)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An encroachment of an improvement located on the conveyed property onto adjacent land does not constitute a breach of the covenant against encumbrances, as the seller lacks the power to convey land they do not own.
Facts:
- In 1973, the defendants purchased a property from Stone Construction Company.
- At the time of purchase, and throughout the defendants' ownership, part of the property's driveway and sewer lateral line were located on adjacent property not owned by them.
- The defendants were not aware of this encroachment.
- On August 4, 1978, the plaintiffs purchased the property from the defendants by a general warranty deed.
- The deed stated it conveyed the property 'with the buildings and all other improvements thereon' but made no specific reference to the location of the driveway or sewer lines.
- After the purchase, the plaintiffs discovered the encroachment of the driveway and sewer lines onto the neighboring property.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in the trial court against the defendants, seeking damages.
- The basis of the plaintiffs' claim was that the defendants breached the covenant against encumbrances contained in the warranty deed.
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 the partial location of a property's driveway and sewer lines on adjacent land constitute a breach of the covenant against encumbrances by the seller?
Opinions:
Majority - Higgins, J.
No. The partial location of a driveway and sewer lines on adjacent property is not a breach of the covenant against encumbrances. The court reasoned that an encumbrance is a legal right or interest held by a third person in the land being conveyed, which diminishes its value. Here, the encroachment is a physical condition on a neighbor's property, not a legal claim against the fee conveyed to the plaintiffs. The court also rejected the argument that the encroaching portions were 'appurtenances' to the property. It applied a two-part test for an appurtenance from Gager v. Carlson, holding that for something to pass as appurtenant, the grantor must (1) have the power to convey it and (2) it must be reasonably necessary for enjoyment of the property. While the driveway was necessary (satisfying prong two), the defendants never owned the adjacent land and thus had no power to convey it, failing the first prong. The court distinguished this case from those where a building encroaches onto the purchased land, aligning its reasoning with Burke v. Nichols, which held that land does not pass as an appurtenant to land.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the scope of the covenant against encumbrances, distinguishing between defects of title and physical conditions of the property. It establishes that the covenant protects a grantee only from third-party legal claims against the title of the land actually conveyed, not from issues where improvements on that land physically encroach onto neighboring property. This ruling reinforces the principle of 'caveat emptor' (let the buyer beware) in real estate transactions, placing the onus on purchasers to conduct due diligence, such as obtaining a survey, to identify boundary discrepancies and other physical defects before closing.
