The Connecticut Appellate Court ruled in favor of Lorraine Esposito in a property dispute involving encroachments by her neighbors, Daniel and Gritli Rabin. The court's decision, released on June 16, 2026, reversed a lower court's ruling that had previously sided with the defendants. This ruling is significant as it clarifies property rights and the requirements for establishing adverse possession.
The case, known as Esposito v. Rabin (AC47934), centers around a conflict between two property owners in Branford, Connecticut. Lorraine Esposito, the plaintiff, purchased her property at 71 Midwood Road in August 2021. Shortly after her purchase, she discovered that a significant portion of her property was encroached upon by structures belonging to her neighbors, the Rabins, who own the adjacent property at 24 Stone Street. The Rabins had placed a shed and a compost corral that intruded onto Esposito's land.
After commissioning a survey that confirmed the encroachments, Esposito attempted to communicate with the Rabins about the issue. Despite her efforts, including granting temporary permission for them to use the encroached land, the situation escalated. The Rabins claimed they had acquired the disputed area through adverse possession, a legal doctrine that allows a person to claim ownership of land under certain conditions, including continuous and open use for a specified period. Esposito, however, sought to quiet title to her property, asserting her ownership rights.
The trial court initially ruled in favor of the Rabins, finding that they had established their claim of adverse possession. However, Esposito appealed, arguing that the court had failed to properly resolve the issues regarding the title and the nature of the encroachments. The appellate court reviewed the case and determined that the trial court's failure to quiet title to the disputed portion of Esposito's property was contrary to Connecticut law.
The court noted that the trial court had not made a full determination of the parties' rights to the disputed area as required by General Statutes § 47-31. The appellate court stated, "The trial court’s failure to quiet title to the disputed portion of the plaintiff’s property was contrary to law and could not stand." The judges presiding over the case were Alvord, Seeley, and Keller.
Furthermore, the appellate court found that the Rabins did not provide clear and convincing evidence to support their claim of adverse possession. The court highlighted that the defendants failed to adequately describe the entire disputed area they claimed to have acquired. As a result, the court reversed the trial court's judgment regarding Esposito's request to quiet title and directed that the title be quieted in her favor.
In addition to the ruling on title, the appellate court addressed Esposito's claims of trespass against the Rabins. The court found that the trial court had improperly rejected her claims, stating that the Rabins had intentionally continued to use the disputed area for their encroachments after being informed that they did not own it. The appellate court concluded that the trial court's finding that Esposito had trespassed on the Rabins' encroachments was incorrect, as she could not trespass on property she legally owned.
The ruling also touched on the issue of nuisance related to security cameras that Esposito had installed on her property, which were directed at the Rabins' property. The appellate court found the trial court's conclusion that these cameras constituted a nuisance to be erroneous, as it did not provide sufficient analysis or findings to support that conclusion.
This ruling has significant implications for property owners in Connecticut. It clarifies the requirements for establishing adverse possession and reinforces the importance of accurately determining property boundaries. The decision also emphasizes the need for courts to address property disputes comprehensively to ensure that title issues are resolved and that property rights are protected.
Looking ahead, it remains to be seen whether the Rabins will seek to appeal this ruling. The appellate court's decision has set a clear precedent regarding the handling of property disputes involving encroachments and adverse possession claims. As property owners navigate similar disputes, this ruling may serve as a guiding framework for future cases.