In this action to quiet title, the appealchallenges the trial court's interpretation of the deedsand maps on which the plaintiffs, Lawrence Loeb andAllen Loeb, relied to establish their title against thedefendant, Al-Mor Corporation. The plaintiffs instituteda complaint in two counts against the defendant,seeking relief on alternate theories of record title andadverse possession. The trial court, after a hearing, rendereda judgment in favor of the defendant on bothcounts. The plaintiffs appealed from that judgment tothe Appellate Court, and we transferred the appeal tothis court pursuant to Practice Book 4023 and GeneralStatutes 51-199(c).
Our examination of the record on this appeal, andthe briefs and arguments of the parties, persuades usthat the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed.In the circumstances of this case, the interpretation ofa stipulation of the parties and of the various contesteddeeds and maps constituted factual issues properlyresolved in the thoughtful and comprehensive memorandumof decision filed by the trial court. Loeb v.Al-Mor Corporation, 42 Conn. Sup. 279, 615 A.2d 182(1991). Because that memorandum of decision fullystates and meets the arguments raised in the presentappeal, we adopt the trial court's well reasoned decisionas a correct statement of the facts and the applicablelaw on the contested issues. It would serve nouseful purpose for us to repeat the discussion thereincontained. See Einbinder v. Board of Tax Review,217 Conn. 240, 242, 584 A.2d 1188 (1991); Fogg v. Wakelee,196 Conn. 287, 288, 492 A.2d 511 (1985).
The judgment is affirmed.
[224 Conn. 8]