******************************************************

The ‘‘officially released’’ date that appears near the

beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will

be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the

date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative

date for the beginning of all time periods for filing

postopinion motions and petitions for certification is

the ‘‘officially released’’ date appearing in the opinion.

In no event will any such motions be accepted before

the ‘‘officially released’’ date.

All opinions are subject to modification and technical

correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the

event of discrepancies between the electronic version

of an opinion and the print version appearing in the

Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the

latest print version is to be considered authoritative.

The syllabus and procedural history accompanying

the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official

Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service

and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes

of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of

the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal

Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut.

******************************************************
LUTHER E. THURLOW ET AL. v. LEE

ANN HULTEN ET AL.

LEE ANN HULTEN ET AL. v. LUTHER E.

THURLOW ET AL.

(AC 37568)

DiPentima, C. J., and Sheldon and Blue, Js.

Argued March 21—officially released June 6, 2017

((Appeal from Superior Court, judicial district of

Hartford, Complex Litigation Docket, Bright, J.)

Richard S. Cody, with whom, on the brief, was Jon

B. Chase, for the appellants-appellees (plaintiffs in the

first case, defendants in the second case).

Michael S. Bonnano, for the appellees-appellants

(defendants in the first case, plaintiffs in the second

case).
Opinion

PER CURIAM. This appeal and cross appeal arise out

of two actions brought to the trial court, which were

consolidated fortrial, stemming from a property dispute

between adjoining landowners in Canterbury. In the

first action, Luther E. Thurlow, Anthony Denning, and

Steven Pelletier (Thurlow parties),1 claimed that Lee

Ann Hulten and Linda K. Dieters (Hulten parties), had

interfered with their right to access their landlocked

property via easements over the Hulten parties’ property, comprised of two separate parcels, lot A and lot

B. The Thurlow parties claimed an express easement

over lot A and an easement by necessity or an easement

by implication over lot B. The Thurlow parties claimed

that they had sustained damages as a result of the

actions of the Hulten parties in restricting their use of

the easements. In the second action, the Hulten parties

claimed that the Thurlow parties had been trespassing

on their property and soughtto quiettitle to the disputed

property. The Hulten parties denied the existence of

any easement over their property, but claimed that,

even if an easement existed, it was limited to lot A.

They thus sought to enjoin the Thurlow parties from

using the claimed easement over lot B. The Hulten parties also sought to quiet title as to the size and boundaries of lot B and to recover damages for the

unauthorized cutting and removal of timber from land

they claimed to be part of lot B.

The trial court found that the Thurlow parties had

an express easement over a path off of Gooseneck Hill

Road that ran through the Hulten parties’ property, lot

A. It rejected the Thurlow parties’ claim that they had

an easement by necessity or by implication running

from the northern border of lot A across lot B, to its

northern border with the Thurlow parties’ landlocked

property, and it denied the Thurlow parties’ request

for an injunction preventing the Hulten parties from

blocking access to the claimed easement. The court

further determined that to the extent that the Hulten

parties have blocked the Thurlow parties from

accessing the easement, the Thurlow parties failed to

establish that they had suffered any harm.

The Thurlow parties filed this appeal from the judgment of the trial court, and the Hulten parties filed a

cross appeal. In their appeal, the Thurlow parties claim

that the trial court erred in finding that they did not

have an easement by necessity or by implication over

lot B; that the court erred in failing to enjoin the Hulten

parties from blocking their use of the express easement

over lot A; and that the court erred in precluding them

from submitting evidence in support of their claim that

they had suffered damages when the Hulten parties

blocked them from accessing firewood on their property. In their cross appeal, the Hulten parties claim that

the trial court incorrectly determined the boundaries
of lot B.

Having examined the record on appeal and considered 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

fully addresses the arguments raised in the present

appeals, we adopt its thorough and well reasoned decision as a proper statement of the facts and the applicable law on these issues. See Thurlow v. Hulten, 173

Conn. App. , A.3d (2014) (appendix). It

would serve no useful purpose for this court to repeat

the analysis contained in the trial court’s decisions.

See Riley v. Pierson, 126 Conn. App. 486, 492, 12 A.3d

581 (2011).

The judgment is affirmed.

1 These appeals arose out of two separate actions that were consolidated

for trial. The plaintiffs in the first action, Thurlow v. Hulten, Superior Court,

judicial district of Hartford, Complex Litigation Docket, Docket No. X04-

CV-05-4059315-S, were Luther E. Thurlow, Anthony Denning and Steven

Pelletier. The defendants were Lee Ann Hulten and Linda K. Dieters. That

case was tried to the court, which rendered judgment in part forthe plaintiffs.

See Thurlow v. Hulten, 130 Conn. App. 1, 21 A.3d 535, cert. denied, 302

Conn. 925, 28 A.3d 337 (2011). This court thereafter reversed the trial court’s

judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Before further proceedings could occur, however, the defendants in that

first action, Hulten and Dieters, brought a second action, Hulten v. Thurlow,

Superior Court, judicial district of Hartford, Complex Litigation Docket,

Docket No. X04-CV-09-4050303-S, against the plaintiffs in the first action,

Thurlow, Denning and Pelletier.

The trial court consolidated both actions and issued a single memorandum

of decision disposing of the claims raised in both cases. For convenience,

we refer in this opinion to Thurlow, Denning and Pelletier as the Thurlow

parties, and to Hulten and Dieters as the Hulten parties, as did the trial

court in its decision.