FOGG v. WAKELEE

12224

196 Conn. 287 (1985) | Cited 4 times | Supreme Court of Connecticut | May 21, 1985

This case is an action to establish theboundary between two adjacent properties in Shelton.The state trial referee, sitting as the trial court, fixed

[196 Conn. 288]

     the boundary in accordance with the claims of the plaintiffs,Leonard F. Fogg III and Rudolph Gajdosik, Jr.The defendant, D. Morgan Wakelee, has appealed fromthe judgment of the trial court.

The only issue that has been properly briefed iswhether there was sufficient evidence to support thetrial court's decision to fix the disputed boundary inaccordance with a survey map prepared by Clarke &Pearson Associates.1 The trial court relied on this map,and on a personal examination of the site, in renderingjudgment for the plaintiffs. After examining therecord on appeal and after considering the briefs andarguments of the parties, we conclude that there is noerror in the judgment from which the appeal was taken.The lengthy and detailed memorandum of decision filedby the trial court; Fogg v. Wakelee, 40 Conn. Sup. 272,492 A.2d 843 (1985); fully states and meets the argumentsof the defendant. We adopt the trial court's decisionas a statement of the facts and the applicable law.It would serve no useful purpose for us to repeat thediscussion therein contained.

There is no error.

1. We need not address the defendant's claims of evidentiary erroras these claims have not been presented in accordance with the requirementsof Practice Book 3060F (c)(3) (now Practice Book 3060F [d] [3]). Thedefendant's brief does not, with regard to either of the evidentiary itemshe disputes, state the circumstances under which these items were offeredat trial or what exceptions were then taken. See Acheson v. White,195 Conn. 211, 217 n. 7, 487 A.2d 197 (1985); State v. Fullwood,194 Conn. 573, 582 n. 6, 484 A.2d 435 (1984); Aetna Life & Casualty Co. v.Miscione of Connecticut, Inc., 193 Conn. 435, 437 n. 2,476 A.2d 577 (1984).Page 289

This case is an action to establish theboundary between two adjacent properties in Shelton.The state trial referee, sitting as the trial court, fixed

[196 Conn. 288]

     the boundary in accordance with the claims of the plaintiffs,Leonard F. Fogg III and Rudolph Gajdosik, Jr.The defendant, D. Morgan Wakelee, has appealed fromthe judgment of the trial court.

The only issue that has been properly briefed iswhether there was sufficient evidence to support thetrial court's decision to fix the disputed boundary inaccordance with a survey map prepared by Clarke &Pearson Associates.1 The trial court relied on this map,and on a personal examination of the site, in renderingjudgment for the plaintiffs. After examining therecord on appeal and after considering the briefs andarguments of the parties, we conclude that there is noerror in the judgment from which the appeal was taken.The lengthy and detailed memorandum of decision filedby the trial court; Fogg v. Wakelee, 40 Conn. Sup. 272,492 A.2d 843 (1985); fully states and meets the argumentsof the defendant. We adopt the trial court's decisionas a statement of the facts and the applicable law.It would serve no useful purpose for us to repeat thediscussion therein contained.

There is no error.

1. We need not address the defendant's claims of evidentiary erroras these claims have not been presented in accordance with the requirementsof Practice Book 3060F (c)(3) (now Practice Book 3060F [d] [3]). Thedefendant's brief does not, with regard to either of the evidentiary itemshe disputes, state the circumstances under which these items were offeredat trial or what exceptions were then taken. See Acheson v. White,195 Conn. 211, 217 n. 7, 487 A.2d 197 (1985); State v. Fullwood,194 Conn. 573, 582 n. 6, 484 A.2d 435 (1984); Aetna Life & Casualty Co. v.Miscione of Connecticut, Inc., 193 Conn. 435, 437 n. 2,476 A.2d 577 (1984).Page 289

Case Summary:
To generate a summary for FOGG v. WAKELEE click here.
Back to top