Preview
DOCKET NO. LLI-CV14-6009898-S : SUPERIOR COURT
ANN MARIE NONKIN : JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF LITCHFIELD
VS. : AT LITCHFIELD
MICHAEL PESCHEL, ET AL : MARCH 30, 2016
AMENDED JOINT TRIAL MANAGEMENT REPORT
I FACTUAL DISCRIPTION:
The Plaintiff and Defendants own adjacent properties in Salisbury, Connecticut on which each
resides. The Plaintiff claims that after the Defendants purchased their property in the fall of 2012, and
thereafter changed the landscape and topography of their property to accumulate and divert water onto the
Plaintiff's property. The Plaintiff also claims that as a result of such water diversion, her property and the
basement of her residence were flooded, resulting in monetary damages, and said damages and flooding
continue over a period of time. The Plaintiff further claims that the Defendants failed to rectify pre-
existing issues regarding run off of water from their property onto hers. She also seeks injunctive relief
as to the Defendants’ purported conduct.
The Defendants deny they made any changes to their property after they acquired it in the fall of
2012 that resulted in accumulating water on their property, or in any fashion increased the amount of water
that naturally flows from their property down to the Plaintiff's property. The Defendants allege by way
of special defenses that the flooding experienced in 2013 was caused by the natural topography of the
property, combined with extraordinarily large rain events that caused both a high water table and anextraordinary amount of flooding, not only at the Plaintiff's property but at many other similarly situated
properties in Salisbury. In addition, the Defendants allege that the Plaintiff took no steps to protect her
property from flooding, and no steps to alleviate conditions that existed on her property that contributed
to the flooding, the damages of which she complains.
IL. FACTUAL ISSUES IN DISPUTE:
1. Did the Defendants make any changes to their Property that resulted in an unnatural
accumulation of water and discharge of water onto the Plaintiff's property?
2. Did any modifications the Defendants made to their property increase in any fashion the
amount of water that would otherwise naturally flow onto the Plaintiff's property?
3. Was the Defendants’ conduct the cause of the flooding on the Plaintiff's property that
resulted in damages to the Plaintiff?
4. Were there extraordinary storms during the period in question that caused to the exclusion
of any conduct by the Defendants the damages of which the Plaintiff. complains?
5. Did the Plaintiff, despite knowing that her property was downhill from the Defendants’
Property and therefore subject to surface water runoff from the Defendants’ property, take appropriate
Steps to protect her property, and particularly her residence, from surface water runoff that could
foreseeable cause damage to her residence?6. Were the damages claimed by the Plaintiff proximately caused by any conduct of the
Defendants?
7. Did the Defendants fail to rectify pre-existing conditions on their property after being
informed by the Plaintiff that water was coming down their property onto hers?
8. Has the Plaintiff proven the damages to which she claimed to be entitled by the events
depicted in her complaint?
9. If the Plaintiff establishes entitlement to monetary damages, are the Defendants entitled to
a set off relative to monies previously received by the Plaintiff in her settlement with UPCountry Services
of Sharon, Inc., a former Defendant in the action?
II. WITNESS LISTS:
FOR THE PLAINTIFF:
FACT WITNESSES:
a. Ann Marie Nonkin (Party)
b. Michael Peschel (Party)
c. Judy Peschel (Party)
d. John Burkhart
e. Gene Greenf. Jason Bonhotel
2g. Nancy Brusie
h. Michael Fitting
i. John Morgan
j. Keith Kellner
k. Donald Hosier
L. Wendy Hamilton
m. Jason Wilson: Lakeville Volunteer Fire Department
n. William Case: W.B. Case, LLC: Plumbing and Heating
0. Matthew Freudenberg:
EXPERT WITNESSES:
p. Richard Calkins at Northeast Consulting, LLC
q. Mark Fenn, Connecticut Building Company
r Ned Towle, CWE, FWS Director or Westchester Wine School
* The Plaintiff reserves the right to call additional witness if necessary.FOR THE DEFENDANTS’:
FACT WITNESS:
a. Michael Peschel
b. Judy Peschel
c Alan Borghesi
d. Keith Kellner
e. Melissa Hosier
f. Matthew Freudenberg
g. Mark Capecelatro
h. Claire Marie
i.
Peter J. Ponziani
= The Defendants reserve the right to call additional witnesses if necessary.
EXPERT WITNESS:
j.
Paul Szymanski, Jr., P.E. of Arthur F. Howland & Associates, P.C.4. PENDING MOTIONS:
FOR THE PLAINTIFF:
a.
b.
Motion for Expert Testimony Fee
Motion to Use Deposition of Mr. John Burkhart at Trial
FOR THE DEFENDANT:
a.
Motion for Order of Compliance re: Pending Discovery Requests.
5. OPERATIVE PLEADINGS:
a,
b.
Plaintiff's Amended Revised Complaint November 4, 2014 (#127.00)
Defendants’ Answer and Special Defenses November 7, 2014 (#128.00)
Plaintiff's Reply to Defendants’ Special Defenses December 3, 2014 (#129.00)
Amendment to Answer and Special Defenses October 28, 2015 (#155.00)
Withdrawal as to UpCountry Services of Sharon, Inc. September 16, 2015 (#150.00)
Plaintiff's Disclosure of Expert Witness Richard Calkins March 2, 2015 (#136.00)
Plaintiff's Disclosure of Expert Witness Ned Towle March 2, 2015 (#138.00)
Plaintiff's Disclosure of Expert Witness Mark Fenn May 13, 2014 (#143.00)
Plaintiff's Amended Disclosure of Expert Witness Ned Towle May 14, 2015 (#144.00)j. Defendants’ Disclosure of Expert Witness Paul Szymanski September 22, 2015 (#153.00)
6. ESTIMTE OF AMOUNT OF TIME NECESSARY TO TRY THE CASE:
Two (2) weeks
7. ANTICIPATED SCHEDULING PROBLEMS:
None at this time.
FOR THE PLAINTIFF
ANN MARIE NONKIN
010785
William A. Conti, Esq.
Conti & Levy
355 Prospect Street, PO Box 239
Torrington, Connecticut 06790
(860) 482-4451 Phone
(860) 489-6306 Fax
FOR THE DEFENDANTS’
MICHAEL AND JUDY PESCHEL
100205
William C. Franklin, Esq.
Cramer & Anderson
46 West Street, PO Box 278
Litchfield, Connecticut 06759
(860) 567-8717 Phone
(860) 567-4531
Preview
DOCKET NO. LLI-CV14-6009898-S : SUPERIOR COURT ANN MARIE NONKIN : JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF LITCHFIELD VS. : AT LITCHFIELD MICHAEL PESCHEL, ET AL : MARCH 30, 2016 AMENDED JOINT TRIAL MANAGEMENT REPORT I FACTUAL DISCRIPTION: The Plaintiff and Defendants own adjacent properties in Salisbury, Connecticut on which each resides. The Plaintiff claims that after the Defendants purchased their property in the fall of 2012, and thereafter changed the landscape and topography of their property to accumulate and divert water onto the Plaintiff's property. The Plaintiff also claims that as a result of such water diversion, her property and the basement of her residence were flooded, resulting in monetary damages, and said damages and flooding continue over a period of time. The Plaintiff further claims that the Defendants failed to rectify pre- existing issues regarding run off of water from their property onto hers. She also seeks injunctive relief as to the Defendants’ purported conduct. The Defendants deny they made any changes to their property after they acquired it in the fall of 2012 that resulted in accumulating water on their property, or in any fashion increased the amount of water that naturally flows from their property down to the Plaintiff's property. The Defendants allege by way of special defenses that the flooding experienced in 2013 was caused by the natural topography of the property, combined with extraordinarily large rain events that caused both a high water table and anextraordinary amount of flooding, not only at the Plaintiff's property but at many other similarly situated properties in Salisbury. In addition, the Defendants allege that the Plaintiff took no steps to protect her property from flooding, and no steps to alleviate conditions that existed on her property that contributed to the flooding, the damages of which she complains. IL. FACTUAL ISSUES IN DISPUTE: 1. Did the Defendants make any changes to their Property that resulted in an unnatural accumulation of water and discharge of water onto the Plaintiff's property? 2. Did any modifications the Defendants made to their property increase in any fashion the amount of water that would otherwise naturally flow onto the Plaintiff's property? 3. Was the Defendants’ conduct the cause of the flooding on the Plaintiff's property that resulted in damages to the Plaintiff? 4. Were there extraordinary storms during the period in question that caused to the exclusion of any conduct by the Defendants the damages of which the Plaintiff. complains? 5. Did the Plaintiff, despite knowing that her property was downhill from the Defendants’ Property and therefore subject to surface water runoff from the Defendants’ property, take appropriate Steps to protect her property, and particularly her residence, from surface water runoff that could foreseeable cause damage to her residence?6. Were the damages claimed by the Plaintiff proximately caused by any conduct of the Defendants? 7. Did the Defendants fail to rectify pre-existing conditions on their property after being informed by the Plaintiff that water was coming down their property onto hers? 8. Has the Plaintiff proven the damages to which she claimed to be entitled by the events depicted in her complaint? 9. If the Plaintiff establishes entitlement to monetary damages, are the Defendants entitled to a set off relative to monies previously received by the Plaintiff in her settlement with UPCountry Services of Sharon, Inc., a former Defendant in the action? II. WITNESS LISTS: FOR THE PLAINTIFF: FACT WITNESSES: a. Ann Marie Nonkin (Party) b. Michael Peschel (Party) c. Judy Peschel (Party) d. John Burkhart e. Gene Greenf. Jason Bonhotel 2g. Nancy Brusie h. Michael Fitting i. John Morgan j. Keith Kellner k. Donald Hosier L. Wendy Hamilton m. Jason Wilson: Lakeville Volunteer Fire Department n. William Case: W.B. Case, LLC: Plumbing and Heating 0. Matthew Freudenberg: EXPERT WITNESSES: p. Richard Calkins at Northeast Consulting, LLC q. Mark Fenn, Connecticut Building Company r Ned Towle, CWE, FWS Director or Westchester Wine School * The Plaintiff reserves the right to call additional witness if necessary.FOR THE DEFENDANTS’: FACT WITNESS: a. Michael Peschel b. Judy Peschel c Alan Borghesi d. Keith Kellner e. Melissa Hosier f. Matthew Freudenberg g. Mark Capecelatro h. Claire Marie i. Peter J. Ponziani = The Defendants reserve the right to call additional witnesses if necessary. EXPERT WITNESS: j. Paul Szymanski, Jr., P.E. of Arthur F. Howland & Associates, P.C.4. PENDING MOTIONS: FOR THE PLAINTIFF: a. b. Motion for Expert Testimony Fee Motion to Use Deposition of Mr. John Burkhart at Trial FOR THE DEFENDANT: a. Motion for Order of Compliance re: Pending Discovery Requests. 5. OPERATIVE PLEADINGS: a, b. Plaintiff's Amended Revised Complaint November 4, 2014 (#127.00) Defendants’ Answer and Special Defenses November 7, 2014 (#128.00) Plaintiff's Reply to Defendants’ Special Defenses December 3, 2014 (#129.00) Amendment to Answer and Special Defenses October 28, 2015 (#155.00) Withdrawal as to UpCountry Services of Sharon, Inc. September 16, 2015 (#150.00) Plaintiff's Disclosure of Expert Witness Richard Calkins March 2, 2015 (#136.00) Plaintiff's Disclosure of Expert Witness Ned Towle March 2, 2015 (#138.00) Plaintiff's Disclosure of Expert Witness Mark Fenn May 13, 2014 (#143.00) Plaintiff's Amended Disclosure of Expert Witness Ned Towle May 14, 2015 (#144.00)j. Defendants’ Disclosure of Expert Witness Paul Szymanski September 22, 2015 (#153.00) 6. ESTIMTE OF AMOUNT OF TIME NECESSARY TO TRY THE CASE: Two (2) weeks 7. ANTICIPATED SCHEDULING PROBLEMS: None at this time. FOR THE PLAINTIFF ANN MARIE NONKIN 010785 William A. Conti, Esq. Conti & Levy 355 Prospect Street, PO Box 239 Torrington, Connecticut 06790 (860) 482-4451 Phone (860) 489-6306 Fax FOR THE DEFENDANTS’ MICHAEL AND JUDY PESCHEL 100205 William C. Franklin, Esq. Cramer & Anderson 46 West Street, PO Box 278 Litchfield, Connecticut 06759 (860) 567-8717 Phone (860) 567-4531