Alfred L. Hoelk, Jr. v. City of Norwich (2009)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE MOTION TO STRIKE # 102

This case arises out of an action filed by the plaintiff, Alfred L. Hoelk, Jr., against the City of Norwich.   The plaintiff alleges that he has access by virtue of an easement or right-of-way of approximately 12 feet in width running from Lucas Park Road in the Town of Norwich to the said premises owned by the plaintiff, more particularly described as 130 Lucas Park Road. The plaintiff has alleged access to the subject property by way of prescriptive easement (first count), implied easement (second count) and quiet title (third count).

The defendant, City of Norwich, has filed a motion to strike the plaintiff's complaint dated August 12, 2009, pursuant to the provisions of § 10-39 of the Connecticut Practice Act. The defendant alleges that the complaint should be stricken on the grounds of non-joinder of a necessary or indispensable party.   The defendant claims that the plaintiff has failed to name as a defendant the United States of America as Trustee for the Mohegan Tribe of Indians of Connecticut (hereinafter “Mohegan Tribe”).   The Mohegan Tribe owns the parcel of land adjacent to both Lucas Park Road the property owned by the defendant, City of Norwich.

The defendant further contends that without naming the Mohegan Tribe as a party defendant, the plaintiff would not have access to Lucas Park Road in that the right-of-way in question runs from Lucas Park Road through land of the Mohegan Tribe through and including land of the defendant, City of Norwich.   The defendant contends that the Mohegan Tribe is a necessary or indispensable party in that the plaintiff's access to Lucas Park Road is conditioned upon an easement through both land of the defendant, City of Norwich, and the Mohegan Tribe.   The plaintiff contends to the contrary.   The plaintiff argues that it has the right to quiet title or seek access though prescriptive or implied easement rights over the land of the City of Norwich without making the Mohegan Tribe a party defendant to the present action.

APPLICABLE LAW

I

“The purpose of a motion to strike is to contest ․ the legal sufficiency of the allegations of any complaint ․ to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.”  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  Fort Trumbull Conservancy, LLC v. Alves, 262 Conn. 480, 498, 815 A.2d 1188 (2003).  “[F]or the purpose of a motion to strike, the moving party admits all facts well pleaded.”  RK Constructors, Inc. v. Fusco Corp., 231 Conn. 381, 383 n.2, 650 A.2d 153 (1994).   Accordingly, “[i]f facts provable in the complaint would support a cause of action, the motion to strike must be denied.”  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  Batte-Holmgren v. Commissioner of Public Health, 281 Conn. 277, 294, 914 A.2d 996 (2007).   The defendant has moved this court, under Practice Book § 10-39(a)(3), to strike the three counts on the ground that the plaintiffs have failed to join the Mohegan Tribe as a necessary party to this action.

Under our law, necessary parties are defined as “[p]ersons having an interest in the controversy, and who ought to be made parties, in order that the court may act on that rule which requires it to decide on, and finally determine the entire controversy, and to complete justice, by adjusting all the rights involved in it ․ [B]ut if their interests are separable from those of the parties before the court, so that the court can proceed to a decree, and to complete and final justice, without affecting other persons not before the court, the latter are not indispensable parties.'  Shields v. Barrow, [58 U.S. (17 How.) 130, 139, 15 L.Ed. 158 (1854) ] ․” In short, a party is “necessary” if its presence is “absolutely required in order to assure a fair and equitable trial.”  Biro v. Hill, 214 Conn. 1, 6-7, 570 A.2d 182 (1990).

ANALYSIS

The court must determine if the presence of the Mohegan Tribe is absolutely required in order to assure a fair and equitable trial.   The pleadings of the plaintiff and defendant to date do not reflect whether or not the Mohegan Tribe challenges the claims of the plaintiff in the present controversy over land of the Mohegan Tribe.   Furthermore, in an action to quiet title, only parties adverse to the plaintiff's claim of title or interest for the purpose of determining such adverse of interest or claim must be made parties to an action.  C.G.S. § 47-31, Gandolfo v. Barker, Superior Court, judicial district of Hartford at Hartford, Docket No. CV-06-5003862S (July 7, 2009, Sheldon, J.).   This court can determine the interest of the plaintiff concerning the right-of-way in question over land of the City of Norwich to a complete and final determination without affecting other persons not before the court.   The court, therefore, concludes that the Mohegan Tribe is not an indispensable party and to the present controversy.

ORDER

The defendant's motion to strike # 102 is hereby denied.

Devine, J.

Devine, James J., J.