Thomas v. Primus
148 Conn.App. 28 (2014)
Rule of Law:
An easement by necessity is created when a grantor conveys a parcel of land that is inaccessible except over the grantor's remaining lands, and this necessity is not defeated by a predecessor in title's past, unexercised option to purchase alternative access.
Facts:
- Martha Thomas owned a single, large parcel of property.
- In 1959, Martha Thomas conveyed a 1.25-acre portion of her property to Arthur Primus, which left the conveyed parcel landlocked.
- At the time of the 1959 conveyance, Martha Thomas and Arthur Primus agreed that access to the landlocked parcel would be through a strip of land on her retained property known as the 'passway'.
- In 1969, the defendant, Bruno Primus, took possession of the landlocked parcel from his brother, Arthur.
- In 2002, the plaintiffs, William Thomas, Craig B. Thomas, and Andrea Thomas Jabs (Martha Thomas's grandchildren), took possession of the remaining property, which included the passway.
- In 2008, when the plaintiffs decided to sell their property, Bruno Primus sent them a letter asserting his right to use the passway to access his land.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiffs entered a contract to sell their property, but the prospective buyers cancelled upon learning of the defendant's claimed right to use the passway.
- The plaintiffs filed an action to quiet title in the trial court, seeking a declaratory judgment that the defendant had no interest in their property.
- The defendant filed a counterclaim, asking the trial court to establish his right to use the passway.
- In response to the counterclaim, the plaintiffs asserted the special defense of laches.
- The trial court found in favor of the defendant, concluding he had an easement by necessity and rejecting the laches defense.
- The plaintiffs (appellants) appealed the trial court's judgment to the Connecticut Appellate Court, where the defendant (Primus) is the appellee.
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 an easement by necessity exist over a grantor's retained land to benefit a landlocked parcel when the grantee's predecessor in title once had an opportunity to purchase alternative access?
Opinions:
Majority - Mihalakos, J.
Yes. An easement by necessity exists because the defendant's parcel is landlocked and access across the plaintiffs' passway is reasonably necessary for its use and enjoyment. The court reasoned that the test for necessity is whether a party can create a substitute access route at a reasonable cost on their own estate, not whether they could have purchased additional property to create access. The fact that the defendant's predecessor, Arthur Primus, once had an option to buy alternative access which expired in 1962 is irrelevant to the current necessity. Furthermore, the court held that the presumed intent of the original parties is a 'fiction of law' designed to serve the public policy that no land should be left inaccessible; therefore, the actual intent of the parties is not a required element for an easement by necessity unless they explicitly agree an easement does not exist. Finally, the court rejected the plaintiffs' argument that the defendant had to produce title searches for all adjacent properties, holding that maps, deeds, and testimony were sufficient to establish that the property was landlocked where the plaintiffs offered no evidence of a specific alternate route.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the scope of the 'reasonable necessity' requirement for an easement by necessity in Connecticut. It establishes that the necessity is determined by the current state of the property and is not defeated by a prior owner's expired option to purchase alternative access. The ruling reinforces that the doctrine is rooted in public policy against rendering land useless, rather than the actual intent of the original parties. This precedent lowers the evidentiary burden for claimants by confirming that exhaustive title searches of all surrounding properties are not always required to prove a parcel is landlocked, especially when the opposing party does not allege a specific, viable alternative route.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Thomas v. Primus (2014)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"