D. MICHAEL HURLEY, J.T.R.
The plaintiff, Susan Flynn, also known as Susan Tramantana, commenced this action against the "widow, heirs, representatives and creditors" of Elijah Woodworth by filing a lis pendens in Norwich on August 28, 2006. She claimed adverse possession and quiet title over a portion of Edgewood Road in Norwich ("subject land"). The court, Hurley, J.T.R., entered judgment against the defendants on December 11, 2006.
On April 10, 2007, The Hilltop at Edgewood, L.L.C. ("Hilltop"), entered an appearance and filed the present motion to open judgment. The plaintiff filed an objection on April 13, 2007. The court heard the matter at short calendar on May 29, 2007.
"A motion to open and vacate a judgment . . . is addressed to the [trial] court's discretion, and the action of the trial court will not be disturbed on appeal unless it acted unreasonably and in clear abuse of its discretion . . . The manner in which [this] discretion is exercised will not be disturbed so long as the court could reasonably conclude as it did." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Skinner v. Doelger, 99 Conn.App. 540, 546, 915 A.2d 314 (2007).
In its motion to open, Hilltop argues that it is a necessary party for a complete determination of interests in the subject land. Hilltop claims to own a seven-acre parcel whose principal access to a public road known as Boswell Avenue is over the subject land. Hilltop argues that it has obtained approval to construct thirty-nine condominium units on the seven-acre parcel. Hilltop argues that the plaintiff should have made it a defendant because she was aware it used the subject land as a road while constructing the condominium.
The plaintiff argues in opposition to Hilltop's motion that Hilltop is not a necessary party. The plaintiff asserts that Hilltop began using CT Page 15213 the subject land to access its property only in March or April of 2006. Before Hilltop commenced the condominium project, the seven-acre parcel was a wooded forest area and the subject land was a dead end street, according to the plaintiff. Further, the plaintiff argues that this action determined ownership of the fee in the subject land, which is not related to Hilltop's claim of a right to travel over it. Accordingly, the plaintiff argues, the motion to open should be denied.
"Necessary parties . . . are those [p]ersons having an interest in the controversy, and who ought to be made parties, in order that the court may act on that rule which requires it to decide on, and finally determine the entire controversy, and do complete justice, by adjusting all the rights involved in it . . . [B]ut if their interests are separable from those of the parties before the court, so that the court can proceed to a decree, and do complete and final justice, without affecting other persons not before the court, the latter are not indispensable parties." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) 1525 Highland Associates, LLC v. Fohl, 62 Conn.App. 612, 618, 772 A.2d 1128 (2001).
"An action to quiet title is a statutory action instituted under the provisions of General Statutes § 47-31. The statute requires the plaintiffs to name the person or persons who may claim such adverse estate or interest. Lake Garda Improvement Ass'n. v. Battistoni, 155 Conn. 287, 293, 231 A.2d 276 (1967). So that the trial court can make a full determination of the rights of the parties to the land, an action to quiet title is brought against persons who claim title to or have an interest in the land. Cahill v. Cahill, 76 Conn. 542, 547, 57 A. 284 (1904). Only the parties to an action to quiet title are bound by the judgment. Lake Garda Improvement Ass'n. v. Battistoni, supra, 294-95." Swenson v. Dittner, 183 Conn. 289, 292, 439 A.2d 334 (1981). Failure to join parties that may have an interest in a right-of-way over the subject property "is not error because the decision to join a party in a suit to quiet title is made by the plaintiff." Id. A court may quiet title as to the fee in a road without affecting an interest in a right-of-way over it. Bird Peak Road Ass'n., Inc. v. Bird Peak Corp., 62 Conn.App. 551, 556, 771 A.2d 260 (2001).
The plaintiff brought this quiet title action to determine whether she or the defendants owned the fee in the subject land. While Hilltop argues it has a right of way across the subject land, it does not claim an interest in the fee. If Hilltop has a right of way and the plaintiff is blocking it, Hilltop may bring a separate action for an injunction to prevent such blocking. In the present action, however, the plaintiff chose neither to address that issue nor to make Hilltop a party. CT Page 15214 Accordingly, since Hilltop was not a party to the court's judgment, the judgment does not determine whether Hilltop has a right of way over the subject land. The motion to open is denied.
CT Page 15215