Frech Et V Piontkowski

994 A.2d 84 (2010)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

The reservoir was created in 1890 by the erection of a dam on the property currently owned by Ds, twenty-five feet in height from the bottom of a brook situated on the property. The original purpose of the dam was to provide water to the water towers serving the steam locomotives at the Old Saybrook Railroad Junction. Ds owns the reservoir and the land under it, and Ps each own land abutting the reservoir in a subdivision that was approved in 1974. Over more than twenty-five years Ps used the whole of the reservoir for recreational purposes, including boating, swimming, fishing, ice-skating, and ice fishing. One family had placed wooden pallets on their lot at the water's edge to facilitate access to their boat from the land. Another built a sandy beach on the edge of their lot leading into the reservoir, with sand that had been delivered to the property by truck. Another family kept a boat and they and their guests used it over the entire reservoir. Ds had not given permission to use the reservoir for these purposes, and Ps had never asked. Ds placed 'No Trespassing' signs in the water near Ps' lots and Ps removed the signs. Ps brought this action claiming that they had acquired a prescriptive easement over the reservoir for recreational purposes. Ds filed a counterclaim seeking to quiet title with respect to the reservoir and the disputed land between the edge of the reservoir and the boundaries of Ps' properties. The trial court ruled that Ps had acquired a prescriptive easement over the reservoir and that they respectively held record title to the disputed portions of land on lots leading up to the edge of the water, or, in the alternative, had proven by clear and convincing evidence that they had acquired title in the same by adverse possession. Ds appealed. Ds contend that the acquisition of an easement over an artificial body of water imposes too great a burden on the servient estate by imposing on the owner the duty to maintain the artificial body of water--in the present case, by maintaining the dam. Ds also argue that the acquisition of an easement for recreational purposes over water presents notice issues that do not exist with respect to easements acquired over land, or easements for commercial purposes over water. Ps contend that for purposes of acquiring an easement by prescription, the reservoir in the present case is treated identically to a parcel of land.