AFP 100 v. LLC (2011)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

FACTS AND PROCEDURE:

The plaintiff has been the owner of 16 Ella Grasso Turnpike Windsor Locks, Connecticut since November 2005.   At all time relevant hereto the defendant has owned the adjacent property northerly at 18 Ella Grasso Turnpike in Windsor Locks.   By virtue of their predecessors in title the defendant owns an easement over the property of the plaintiff.   Paragraph VI of the easement dated December 15, 1983 requires the defendant to maintain the easement and any improvement constructed thereon in neat, clean and good condition, and at the defendant's own cost and expense keep the said parking area and driveway reasonably free from ice and snow.

Both parties did not immediately become aware that it was the responsibility of the defendant to keep the easement area free from ice and snow.   The result was that the plaintiff did so at its expense.   When this was realized by the plaintiff, it sent a letter to the defendant demanding reimbursement for the cost of snow and ice removal during the seasons of 2004–05 through 2008–09 totaling $20,011.04.   This is set forth in plaintiff's Exhibit Five, but as will be noted on said Exhibit the charges for the 2004–05 season have been deleted because the plaintiff did not own the property at that point, and the subcontractor who did the removal of the snow and ice was paid apparently by the plaintiff's predecessor.   The resulting claim is therefore $16,071.23.¹  Defendant claims that it was never given an opportunity to cure the defect by the fact that it was not notified that it was its responsibility to clean the ice and snow until August 21, 2009 by letter (Exhibit Five).   Following that letter and no doubt discussion, the defendant has fulfilled its responsibility to clean the ice and snow from the easement.

The main defense that the defendant has set forth by special defense is Laches.   Trial was held before this Court in the morning of July 27, 2011.

ISSUES AND FINDINGS:

Is Laches a Valid Defense to the Claim of the Plaintiff in this Case?

The short answer is No.

In Jarvis v. Lieder, 117 Conn.App. 129, 138 (2009) the Court stated:

The defense of laches, if proven, bars a plaintiff from seeking equitable relief ․ 2 First, there must have been a delay that was inexcusable, and, second, that delay must have prejudiced the defendant ․ the burden is on the party alleging laches to establish that defense ․ the mere lapse of time does not constitute laches ․ unless it results in prejudice to the [opposing party] ․ as where, for example, the [opposing party] is led to change his position with respect to the matter in question.  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)

This Court finds that the delay in seeking reimbursement was not inexcusable.   There was negligence on both sides.   Neither party had read the easement under which they took title.   The plaintiff was negligent in not recognizing that the defendant was responsible for maintaining and clearing ice and snow from the easement, but that negligence is offset by the negligence of the defendant in equally not becoming aware of its responsibility under the easement.   A simple title search by both sides would have revealed the contents of this easement.

Secondly, the delay did not prejudice the defendant.   The reimbursement is for monies expended by the plaintiff to clear the ice and snow which if the parties had recognized the responsibility under the easement, the defendant would have had to expend on its own.   In short the defendant has not been harmed and has had the use of its money during that period in which the plaintiff took care of the defendant's responsibility.

As for interest, the Court cannot find that the monies were wrongfully withheld.   It was merely negligence on the part of the defendant and the defendant did not purposely withhold that money.   It was a mutual mistake.   Accordingly, this Court will not assess interest under C.G.S. § 37a–3a.   (Emphasis added.)

Finally, in Jarvis v. Lieder supra the mere lapse of time does not constitute Laches unless it results in prejudice to the [opposing party].   There is no prejudice to the [opposing party] and the lapse of time of approximately four years is not an unreasonable lapse of time.

For the foregoing reasons, judgment is entered for the plaintiff in the amount of $16,071.23 plus post-judgment interest at 10% per annum until paid, plus court cost of $354.20.

Rittenband, JTR

FOOTNOTES

FN1. This was agreed upon by the parties during the testimony in the trial..  FN1. This was agreed upon by the parties during the testimony in the trial.

FN2. Unjust Enrichment is seeking equitable relief..  FN2. Unjust Enrichment is seeking equitable relief.

Rittenband, Richard M., J.T.R.