Bert BRANDER v. Trisha STODDARD, Temporary Administrator (Estate of Lily B. Frey), et al.
In this action seeking to quiet title to a parcel of property located along the Farmington River in New Hartford, the plaintiff, Bert Brander, appeals from the judgment of the trial court finding in favor of the defendants, Trisha Stoddard, in her capacity as the temporary administrator for the estate of Lily B. Frey, and the Farmington River Watershed Association, Inc., on both counts of the operative complaint.1 The plaintiff, who began using the disputed parcel in 1984 to graze sheep and grow hay, alleged that he acquired title through adverse possession or, in the alternative, had a prescriptive easement for its use. In response, the defendants argued that, for certain periods of time, the plaintiff's use of the property had been with the permission or implied consent of the owners. The mat-ter was tried to the court, Marano, J., over two days in February, 2015. On August 6, 2015, the court issued a memorandum of decision finding in favor of the defendants.
The plaintiff claims on appeal that the court improperly concluded that his use of the disputed property from 1984 to 1995 was not under a claim of right but, rather, was with the permission of the record owners at the time, Henry Frey and Lily Frey. The plaintiff also claims that the court improperly concluded that his use of the property from 2004 to 2006 was not under a claim of right, but was with the permission of the record owner, Lily Frey.
Having examined the record on appeal and having considered the briefs and the arguments of the parties, we conclude that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. Further, because the court thoroughly addressed in its memorandum of decision all of the arguments raised by the parties on appeal, we adopt that well reasoned decision as a proper statement of both the facts and the applicable law at issue. See Brander v. Stoddard, 173 Conn. App., A.3d (2015) (appendix). Any further discussion by this court would serve no useful purpose. See, e.g., Woodruff v. Hemingway, 297 Conn. 317, 321, 2 A.3d 857 (2010).
The judgment is affirmed.
1. As found by the trial court, the disputed parcel was part of property originally purchased in 1967 by the plaintiff's uncle, Henry Frey, who in 1981 quitclaimed his interest to himself and his wife, Lily Frey. Henry Frey died in December, 2002, at which time title to the disputed parcel passed to Lily Frey. Lily Frey died in June, 2006. In her will, Lily Frey granted title to the disputed property to the Farmington River Watershed Association, Inc., which is named as a defendant along with the administrator of Lily Frey's estate.
Was this helpful?