Strollo v. Iannantuoni
1999 Conn. App. LEXIS 226, 53 Conn. App. 658, 734 A.2d 144 (1999)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The scope of an easement by necessity is limited to what is reasonably necessary for the beneficial enjoyment of the dominant estate, determined by the property's historical use, and must be as little burdensome as possible to the servient estate.
Facts:
- The plaintiffs' property is landlocked, with no means of ingress or egress to a public road.
- The only physical access to the plaintiffs' property is across the defendants' adjacent land, which fronts on Marion Road.
- Historically, the plaintiffs' property had been used solely for agricultural and recreational purposes.
- The plaintiffs expressed a desire to build a residential subdivision on their property.
- To develop this potential subdivision, the plaintiffs asserted that a 50-foot wide easement across the defendants' property was required.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiffs filed a complaint in a Connecticut trial court, seeking an easement by necessity over the defendants' property.
- The trial court found that an easement by necessity existed and granted the plaintiffs a right-of-way.
- The trial court's judgment limited the easement to 20 feet in width and restricted its purpose to farming and recreational activities.
- The plaintiffs (as appellants) appealed the trial court's judgment to the Appellate Court of Connecticut, challenging the limitations placed on the easement's scope. The defendants are the appellees.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the trial court abuse its discretion by limiting the scope of an easement by necessity to a 20-foot width and restricting its use to farming and recreational activities, rather than granting a 50-foot easement to accommodate a potential future subdivision?
Opinions:
Majority - O'Connell, C.J.
No, the trial court did not abuse its discretion. The scope of an easement by necessity is a question of fact limited by what is reasonably necessary for the property's established use, not an owner's desire for future development, and must be minimally burdensome to the servient estate. The court reasoned that the determination of an easement's scope is a factual inquiry reviewed only for clear error. Here, the plaintiffs' land was historically used for agriculture, and a 20-foot right-of-way was sufficient for that and its current recreational use. The court held that imposing a 50-foot easement simply to accommodate the plaintiffs' 'desire to profit from a potential subdivision' was not reasonably essential and would 'work a serious inequity on the defendants.' Citing Kuras v. Kope, the court affirmed that an easement's use must be reasonable and as little burdensome as possible, and the trial court's decision correctly balanced the equities and was not clearly erroneous.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the principle that an easement by necessity is a remedy grounded in actual, reasonable need based on historical use, rather than a tool for maximizing the future economic potential of a landlocked property. It prevents the doctrine from being used to impose a substantial burden on a servient estate to facilitate a dominant owner's speculative development plans. The ruling reinforces that courts will balance the equities, ensuring that the relief granted to the landlocked owner does not create an unreasonable hardship for the neighboring property owner.
Unlock the full brief for Strollo v. Iannantuoni