Frech v. Piontkowski - 296 Conn. 43, 994 A.2d 84 (2010)

Rule:

A party claiming to have acquired an easement by prescription must demonstrate that the use of the property has been open, visible, continuous and uninterrupted for fifteen years and made under a claim of right. The purpose of the open and visible requirement is to give the owner of the servient land knowledge and full opportunity to assert his own rights. To satisfy this requirement, the adverse use must be made in such a way that a reasonably diligent owner would learn of its existence, nature, and extent. Open generally means that the use is not made in secret or stealthily. It may also mean that it is visible or apparent. An openly visible and apparent use satisfies the requirement even if the neighbors have no actual knowledge of it. A use that is not open but is so widely known in the community that the owner should be aware of it also satisfies the requirement. Concealed usage cannot serve as the basis of a prescriptive claim because it does not put the landowner on notice. A typical example of such a concealed use involves an asserted easement in an underground sewer or pipeline.

Facts:

Plaintiff abutting landowners filed an action, pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 47-31, against defendant reservoir owners, claiming they had acquired a prescriptive easement over the reservoir for recreational purposes. The reservoir owners filed a quiet title counterclaim. The trial court found in favor of the landowners on their claim and the counterclaim. The reservoir owners appealed, claiming that the trial court improperly concluded as a matter of law that the abutting landowners could acquire a prescriptive easement for recreational purposes with respect to a nonnavigable, artificial body of water.

Issue:

Could the landowners acquire a prescriptive easement over the reservoir for recreational purposes? 

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

The court affirmed the judgment of the trial court, holding that the landowners could acquire a prescriptive easement, pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 47-37, as a matter of law because title to the reservoir was governed by the same principles that governed a parcel of land. Thus, the reservoir owners, who owned all the land underneath the reservoir, had the right to exclude the abutting landowners from the reservoir. Sufficient evidence supported the trial court's finding that the abutting landowners acquired a prescriptive easement because the landowners used the reservoir for boating, swimming, fishing, and skating for more than 15 years under a claim of right. One landowner created a beach on his property by trucking in sand. The reservoir owners sending a letter regarding a satellite dish, asking people to leave the reservoir, and the placement of "No Trespassing" signs did not interrupt the landowners' use of the reservoir, pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 47-38.