Jackson v. Lee

Full title: JO-ANN JACKSON v. PASCALE P. LEE

Court: Appellate Court of Connecticut

Date published: May 25, 2010

121 Conn. App. 375 (Conn. App. Ct. 2010)

996 A.2d 302

Opinion

(AC 31182)

Argued April 6, 2010

Officially released May 25, 2010

Procedural History

Action to quiet title to easement rights over certain of the defendant's real property, and for other relief, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Stamford-Norwalk, where the court, Mintz, J., granted the motion filed by Wachovia Mortgage Corporation to be added as a defendant; thereafter, the matter was tried to the court; judgment for the plaintiff, from which the named defendant appealed to this court. Affirmed.

Matthew B. Woods, for the appellant (defendant).

Stephen J. Conover, with whom was Susan R. Briggs, for the appellee (plaintiff).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this quiet title action, the defendant Pascale P. Lee¹ appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the plaintiff, Jo-Ann Jackson, declaring that the plaintiff had acquired a prescriptive easement over a portion of the defendant's real property.² The defendant claims that the evidence was insufficient to support the court's finding that the plaintiff had established all of the elements of a prescriptive easement.

1 Wachovia Mortgage Corporation is also a defendant in this action. Because, however, it is not a party to this appeal, we refer to Pascale P. Lee as the defendant.

2 Although the plaintiff filed an eight count complaint seeking relief, she prevailed only as to her claim for a prescriptive easement over a portion of the defendant's property. The plaintiff is not challenging the court's decision on appeal.

After examining the record on appeal and considering the briefs and the arguments of the parties, we conclude that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. Because the court's memorandum of decision resolves properly the issues raised in this appeal, we adopt the court's concise and well reasoned decision as a statement of the facts and the applicable law on the issue. See Jackson v. Lee, 51 Conn. Sup., A.2d (2009). Any further discussion by this court would serve no useful purpose. See, e.g., Socha v. Bordeau, 289 Conn. 358, 362, 956 A.2d 1174 (2008).

The judgment is affirmed.