****************************************************** 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 subjectto modificationandtechnical 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 ConnecticutAppellate Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears onthe Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service andinthe Connecticut LawJournal andboundvolumes 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 consolidatedfortrial, stemmingfromapropertydispute 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
overlotAandaneasementbynecessityoraneasement 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
ontheirpropertyandsoughttoquiettitletothedisputed 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 apath offof 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 Thurlowparties claim that the trial court erred in finding that they did not have an easement by necessity or by implication over lot B; thatthe court erred in failingto enjoin the Hulten parties fromblockingtheiruse ofthe express easement
over lot A; and that the court erred in precluding them from submitting evidence in support oftheir claim that they had suffered damages when the Hulten parties blocked them from accessing firewood on their property. In their cross appeal, the Hultenparties claimthat the trial court incorrectly determined the boundariesof lot B. Having examined the record on appeal and considered the briefs and the arguments of the parties, we conclude that thejudgment ofthe trial court should be affirmed. Becausethe court’smemorandum ofdecision fully addresses the arguments raised in the present appeals, we adopt its thorough and well reasoned decision as aproper statement ofthe 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 oftwo separate actions that were consolidated fortrial. The plaintiffs inthe 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

casewastriedtothecourt,whichrenderedjudgmentinpartfortheplaintiffs. See Thurlow v. Hulten, 130 Conn. App. 1, 21 A.3d 535, cert. denied, 302 Conn. 925, 28A.3d 337 (2011). This courtthereafterreversedthe trial court’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. Before further proceedings could occur, however, the defendants in that first action, Hulten andDieters, broughtasecondaction, Hultenv. 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. Thetrialcourtconsolidatedbothactionsandissuedasinglememorandum 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.