1075 HONEYSPOT v. 1125 HONEYSPOT RD., No. CV07 401 97 37 S (Sep. 25, 2008)


2008 Ct. Sup. 15519, 46 CLR 362
No. CV07 401 97 37 SConnecticut Superior Court Judicial District of Fairfield at Bridgeport
September 25, 2008

[EDITOR’S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]


In this case, the plaintiff is making his various claims based on the allegations that it has acquired title by adverse possession of a paper street which was conveyed to the adjacent property owners on November of 2006. The defendants are basing their motion for summary judgment of the premise that you can not adversely possess municipally owned property.

The bare assertion that the Town of Stratford was the titled owner of a paper street is insufficient to preclude the ability of the plaintiffs to establish adverse possession as summarized by Judge Mottolese in Lewis v. Matteo, 4 Conn.Sup. 189 (1994). Citing Goldman v. Quadrato, 142 Conn. 398, 403: “Goldman clearly establishes that `[a]dverse possession will run against a municipality . . . as to land which is not held for a public use’ . . . the `controlling factor’ is not whether a municipality holds or purports to hold title to realty, but `the use to which the realty [is] put after its acquisition.’ In Goldman, the Supreme Court found that, although the city of Waterbury clearly held title to the land in question, the land had not been devoted to a public use. The court held, therefore, `as regards adverse possession, the city held the lot subject to the same legal consequences as would have ensured if an individual had been its owner.'” Id., 403.

In summary, in addition to the basic elements of adverse possession which the plaintiff is required to establish by a burden of proof, the plaintiff must further establish that the Street was never devoted to public use. These are factual issues and not the basis for a summary judgment. The motion for summary judgment is denied.

CT Page 15520