Defendant's Attorney:

Description: Bridgeport, Connecticut, civil litigation lawyers represented the owners of adjacent property in a dispute.

This dispute involves parties who own three adjacent parcels located on Evergreen Avenue in Westport. Marian owns a 2.5 acre parcel (Byrne property), the majority of which is located

4

behind the two other lots that are on Evergreen Avenue. Marian now resides with her adult children, Rachel and Jack, on the Byrne property. Marian holds title to a strip of land, which is 27.7 feet wide along Evergreen Avenue and is 187 feet long (access strip). The access strip provides access to the three properties at issue here.

Christopher and Cynthia own a parcel (Hamer property) that lies between the bulk of the Byrne property and Evergreen Avenue. The Hamer property lies adjacent to the access strip. Janis owns a property (Melone property) on the opposite side of the access strip from the Hamer property. The rear property line of the Hamer property abuts the property line of the Byrne property for approximately ninety-five feet. The access strip owned by Marian is encumbered by deed language which provides the plaintiffs and Janis with rights over the access strip ''for purposes of ingress and egress and all purposes for which a public highway can be used.''

There is a brook and a pond on the Byrne property. The residential building and the bulk of the Byrne property is mostly located on the south side of the pond. The land on the north side of the pond abuts the Hamer property and other properties located on Evergreen Avenue. There is a drop in elevation between the property line that divides the Hamer and Byrne properties and the brook and pond. Similar to other properties fronting on Evergreen Avenue, there exists significant vegetation, including shrubbery, deciduous trees, and brush, on the land between the Hamer property and the brook and pond.

The Hamer property has a view of the pond and the Byrne property (to the south of the pond). The view of the pond from the Hamer property varies by season: there is less obstruction of the view at times of the year when there are fewer leaves on the vegetation between

5

the pond and the Hamer property than seasons when the vegetation is thriving. The view enhances the enjoyment of the Hamer property.

The Hamer residence is located toward the northern side of their property, which allows space for a side yard and a paved driveway area immediately abutting the access strip. There is a garage on the Hamer property, which is located toward the back of the property and abuts the access strip. An area of the Hamer property that lies between the garage and the Byrne/Hamer property line is used at various times for storing personal property.

''Marian and her family have lived on the Byrne parcel and Marian has owned an interest in the Byrne parcel since 1995. [Janis] has owned her property since 1988, however, she moved out of the property and began renting it approximately around 2007 or 2008. ''The plaintiffs have lived on the Hamer property since 2017. Cynthia was the sole titleholder until 2020, when she quitclaimed an interest in the Hamer property to Christopher.

''In 2019, [Christopher], alone, brought an action against Marian, Rachel, Jack, [Janis] and two of [Janis'] tenants. [Christopher] was self-represented at the time he brought the action. The 2019 action by [Christopher] alleges many of the facts that are the basis of the subject action brought by [the plaintiffs] against the same defendants.... Subsequent to the filing of the 2019 action, the [plaintiffs] retained counsel. Rather than amending the complaint and pleadings filed by the self-represented [Christopher], counsel, on behalf of [Christopher], withdrew the 2019 action and began the subject action.''

* * *

PROPERTY LAW. SPITE FENCE. The case addresses a dispute over the erection of a fence by a neighboring property owner, where the plaintiffs claimed it was a spite fence constructed to maliciously obstruct their view and enjoyment of their property, but the court found no malicious intent due to the fence's usefulness to the defendant.

PROPERTY LAW. EASEMENT RIGHTS. The case involves a claim concerning the plaintiffs' easement rights, where they sought the removal of mailboxes and a fence that allegedly interfered with their usage of an easement for ingress, egress, and general highway purposes, but the court concluded that the objects did not materially interfere with those rights.

PROPERTY LAW. ADVERSE POSSESSION. The case explores a claim of adverse possession over a strip of land by the plaintiffs, who argued continuous use and control of the property for the requisite statutory period, but the court determined they failed to prove the elements necessary to establish adverse possession.

TORT LAW. PRIMA FACIE TORT. The court addressed a counterclaim alleging prima facie tort based on a series of harassing actions by the plaintiff, ultimately ruling that traditional tort categories adequately addressed such claims, thereby not recognizing a separate prima facie tort cause.

TORT LAW. VEXATIOUS LITIGATION. The court evaluated a vexatious litigation claim where the defendants sought damages for a prior lawsuit they claimed was filed without probable cause, resulting in an award of nominal damages due to insufficient evidence of actual harm incurred by the defendants in connection with the litigation.

Key Phrases Permanent injunction. Spite fence. Adverse possession. Easement rights. Prima facie tort.

Outcome: Judgment in favor of the Defendants.

Affirmed on appeal.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: