Background
360 M.S.R. Associates, LLC owns 360 Main Street in Middletown, Connecticut, and holds an easement over a ten-foot-wide alleyway on neighboring property owned by 350 Main Street Middletown, LLC. A 1905 deed created a “right of way” through the alleyway to the rear of 360 M.S.R.’s property. A related 1925 agreement described the alleyway as a “drive-way” connecting Main Street to a passageway behind the properties.
For years, 360 M.S.R. and its tenants used the alleyway for vehicles without issue. After Susan Bauer began leasing 350 Main Street for The Cooking Company, she placed obstructions in the alleyway and later installed platforms and stairs extending approximately four feet into it, preventing vehicular passage. The trial court ordered the obstructions removed, awarded $10 in nominal damages against Bauer, and determined that her intentional interference justified punitive damages in the form of attorney’s fees. The defendants appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Connecticut Appellate Court affirmed. It held that the unambiguous language of the 1905 deed created a general right-of-way that was not limited to pedestrian use. The deed contained no restriction on the manner of travel, and neither the alleyway’s physical characteristics nor the circumstances surrounding the later 1925 agreement warranted reading a pedestrian-only limitation into the grant.
The court also upheld the finding that vehicular access to the rear of 360 M.S.R.’s property was a reasonable use of the easement. Vehicles had used the alleyway for years, it was the only route from Main Street to the rear of the property, and the defendants failed to prove that such use unreasonably burdened the servient estate or violated the Life Safety Code or public policy. The evidence also supported the finding that Bauer intentionally obstructed the easement, so the punitive-damages ruling was not an abuse of discretion. The court declined to review the defendants’ challenges concerning three counterclaim counts because they were inadequately briefed.
Key Takeaways
- A deed granting a general right-of-way without express restrictions may permit vehicular travel even if the deed does not specifically mention vehicles.
- A modern use of an easement is permissible when it is reasonably connected to use of the dominant property and does not unreasonably burden the servient estate.
- Speculative safety concerns do not establish that an otherwise reasonable easement use violates fire-safety requirements or public policy.
- Knowingly installing structures that block an easement can support nominal damages, injunctive relief, and punitive damages in the form of attorney’s fees.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces that the written terms of an express easement are paramount. Courts will not insert a pedestrian-only restriction into an unrestricted right-of-way merely because the easement is narrow or also serves as an emergency-egress route.
For property owners and commercial tenants, the ruling also underscores the risk of obstructing a recorded easement after receiving notice of the easement holder’s rights. Intentional interference may lead not only to removal of the obstruction but also to punitive damages measured by attorney’s fees.