Preview
DOCKET NO: LLI-CV-14-6009898-S SUPERIOR COURT
ANN MARIE NONKIN JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF LITCHFIELD
VS. AT LITCHFIELD
MICHAEL AND JUDY PESCHEL, ET AL NOVEMBER 4, 2014
PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED REVISED COMPLAINT
FIRST COUNT (AS TO MICHAEL AND JUDY PESCHEL) NEGLIGENCE:
i The Plaintiff, Ann Marie Nonkin, is and was at all times relevant hereto, the owner of
ns 128 Millerton Road, Town of Lakeville, the County of Litchfield and the State of Connecticut, having
ge
purchased the same with her husband, Paul Nonkin, now deceased, on or about December 2, 2004.
35
55 2 The Defendants Michael and Judy Peschel are and were the owners of an adjacent parcel
°2
a2 known as 140 Millerton Road, Town of Lakeville, County of Litchfield and the State of Connecticut,
a6
=F
Eg
22
Se
Cg immediately to the North of the Nonkin property, having been purchased by them on or about
September 17, 2012.
3 The Plaintiff has lived in her home at 128 Millerton Road for many years without any
previous issue as to the runoff of water from the Peschels’ predecessors in title.
4. Furthermore, commencing in the: fall of 2012, the Peschels, and/or their agents or
employees, began a substantial change and renovations of the environs on their property including, but
not limited to, a change of the landscape and topography of their lot in such a way as to divert water and
debris onto the Nonkin piece, the creation of swales which act as conduits of water onto the Nonkin
property, an addition of a garage and breezeway, increasing the impervious surface on their property,
and the connection of downspouts from the gutters on their dwelling to piping directed at the Nonkin
piece.
The Defendants the Peschels were negligent in the following ways:
a. in that they directed water from their roof gutters to downspouts and piping which
greatly increased the flow of water onto the Nonkin property, which then caused a
decrease in the filtration rate on the property and increasing the rate and volume of
runoff of water onto the Nonkin property;
gs
Se
5
=o
b in that they constructed drainage at a variety of locations on their property
“5
“Zz connected to underground piping, increasing the volume and rate of water flow onto the
ao
=e Nonkin property;
Eo
22
8e cc. in that they created a diversion off the road on the Northwest corner of their
property, leaving a runoff through an open swale along the Westerly line of the Peschel
property, which then runs down the Nonkin driveway to the front of the Nonkin home;
and this re-routing of the runoff has increased the volume of said runoff onto the Nonkin
property; and
d in that they dug a swale in the Northeast corner of their property, directing water
on the Eastern side of their property across the lawn on the front of the Nonkin
home, and said diversion has increased the volume and rate of the flow of water onto the
Nonkin property.
6 At some time in the month of May of 2013, the Plaintiff informed the Defendants the
Peschels that, due to the changes made to their property, her property had been damaged and continued
to be damaged in various ways, including but not limited to, increased water flow onto her property,
He mulch, gravel and debris flowing onto her property with said water flow, and said debris blocking her
as
rs
Se
35 drain so that the water could not drain properly causing substantial flooding on her property.
“2 d The Defendants the Peschels were further negligent in the following ways:
as
=e a. in that they increased the flow of water from their property onto the property of
Eg
22
8E the plaintiff;
b in that such increase of water flow caused mulch, mud and debris to flow from
their property onto the property of the plaintiff; and
c. in that, after notice was given by the Plaintiff to the Defendants the Peschels of
the water flowing onto her property causing substantial damage, they failed to remedy or
correct the offending condition, causing further damage to the Plaintiff's property.
8 As a further result of a severe storm on August 28, 2013, which caused water to flow
onto the Nonkin property, said water flow was grossly increased by the negligent actions of the
Defendants, and the Plaintiff has suffered the following losses:
a. Destruction of a Whirlpool Washer and freezer in the basement.
b. Due to the water that flowed in from the Defendants’ property, the Plaintiff
necessitated extensive cleaning of the basement.
Cc. Extensive damage to the walls, ceiling, flooring and perimeter which will
He necessitate replacement of wallboard, flooring, total reconstruction of the basement area,
BS
Soa
zs
35 including a wine cellar.
eZ d A complete diminution of value of the Plaintiff's extensive wine collection due to
a2
ao
re exposure to water, mud and debris which caused mold and a rise in temperature, all of
Eo
2z
SE which was caused by the Defendants’ negligent actions as noted above.
€. Extensive damage to the Plaintiff's new driveway which will necessitate action to
stop the undermining of the driveway by the water flow from the Defendants’ property.
Furthermore, the driveway was paved in 2011, at a cost of approximately $25,000.00, yet
the Plaintiff has been unable to seal her pavement as needed due to the excessive water in
her driveway.
f. Landscaping of the property necessitated by the damage caused to the Plaintiff's
Jawn, greenery, shrubs and the like due to the Defendants’ actions.
& Extensive damage to furniture, antiques, books, collectibles, phates and
mementos caused by the water diverted from the Defendants’ property into the Plaintiff's
basement.
h The Plaintiff will continue to suffer losses as a result of the Defendant’s negligent
actions as noted in paragraph six and will be forced to take additional actions to protect
ee
aida her property.
So
ES
rs
Se
=n SECOND COUNT (AS TO MICHAEL AND JUDY PESCHEL)
qo
“5 IN THE ALTERNATIVE: NEGLIGENCE AS TO PREDECESSOR IN TITLE:
°Z
ao
=e il The Plaintiff, Ann Marie Nonkin, is and was at all times relevant hereto, the owner of
Eo
Cor
128 Millerton Road, in the Town of Lakeville, County of Litchfield and State of Connecticut, having
purchased the same with her husband, Paul Nonkin, now deceased, on or about December 2, 2004.
2 The Defendants Michael and Judy Peschel are and were the owners of an adjacent parcel
known as 140 Millerton Road, in the Town of Lakeville, County of Litchfield and State of Connecticut,
immediately to the North of the Nonkin property, having been purchased by them on or about
September 17, 2012.
3 Commencing on or about May 30, 2013, the Plaintiff notified the Defendants Peschels of
the excessive flow of water from their property onto her property, causing significant damage to her
property. Furthermore, the Plaintiff walked her property on said date with the Defendant Michael
Peschel, notifying him of the mulch, gravel and that mud was flowing from their property onto her
property, which, in turn, was destroying her landscaping and leaving large amounts of flooding all over
her property.
4 Furthermore, after being notified by the Plaintiff of the existing conditions, including but
SB not limited to “puddling” on the property prior to renovations and landscaping done by the Peschels, an
Se
33 existing drain that was clogged and not draining properly, and pipes, drains and gutter/leaders that were
eZ pointed towards the Nonkin property, the Defendants Peschels were negligent in that they failed to
a2
35
=e rectify these existing conditions which were diverting water unlawfully onto the Nonkin property
Eo
Zz
SE causing problems hereinafter as follows:
a. in that the flow of water from their property onto the Nonkin property caused
mulch, mud and debris to flow from their property onto the property of the plaintiff
b in that said flow of water, mulch, mud and debris from the property of the
Defendants Peschels to the Plaintiffs property blocking her drain causing flooding in
many different areas of the Plaintiff's property;
c. in that the gutters, leaders and various drains on the property of the Defendants
Peschels were pointed in such a manner to drain and/or divert water onto the Nonkin
property;
d in that, after they were given notice by the Plaintiff of such conditions, the
Defendants the Peschels knew of the damage caused to the Plaintiff's property, yet they
failed to remedy or correct the offending condition, causing further damage to the
plaintiffs property;
ae?
ue ¢. in that the Defendants Peschels failure to act contributed to the losses as described
SB
ee
rs
Se
35 in Count One, Paragraph 8 of this Amended Revised Complaint.
=o
“Zs THIRD COUNT (AS TO MICHAEL AND JUDY PESCHEL) NUISANCE:
dz
oo
== 1-8. Paragraphs 1 through 8 of the First Count are hereby made corresponding paragraphs 1
Eo
ZZ
8E through 8 of this, the Third Count, as if more fully set forth herein.
9-10. Paragraph 3 through 4 of the Second Count is hereby made paragraph 9 through 10 of
this, the Third Count, as if more fully set forth herein.
T1. The actions of the Defendants the Peschels have caused an unreasonable interference
with the Plaintiffs use of her property.
12, Furthermore, the Defendants’ conduct is and was the proximate cause of this
unreasonable interference.
13. As a further result of said nuisance, the Defendants’ actions, as described above, have
caused and will continue to cause, severe injury to the Plaintiff's property and to her use and enjoyment
thereof.
14. The foregoing events constitute an unreasonable interference with the Plaintiff's use and
enjoyment of her property, which is a direct result of the Defendants’ unauthorized activities, all to the
Plaintiff's loss and damage.
TS. The interference with the Plaintiff's use and enjoyment of her property is a continuing
od
one.
16. As a result of said nuisance, the Plaintiff has suffered substantial financial losses as stated
76
“Zz in paragraph 8 of the First Count of this Complaint, which were directly caused by the Defendants’
d2
ao unreasonable interference to the Plaintiff's property, and therefore the Plaintiff claims monetary
ZZ
8E damages.
FOURTH COUNT (AS TO MICHAEL AND JUDY PESCHEL) INJUNCTION:
1-8. Paragraphs 1 through 8 of the First Count are hereby made corresponding paragraphs 1
through 8 of this, the Second Count, as if more fully set forth herein.
9-10. Paragraph 3 through 4 of the Second Count is hereby made paragraph 9 through 10 of
this, the Fourth Count, as if more fully set forth herein.
11-16. Paragraphs 11 through 16 of the Third Count are hereby made corresponding paragraphs
11 through 16 of this, the Fourth Count, as if more fully set forth herein.
19, The Plaintiff requests an injunctive relief as there is no adequate remedy at law to prevent
further damages to the Plaintiffs property.
FIFTH COUNT ( AS TO UPCOUNTRY SERVICES OF SHARON, INC.) NEGLIGENCE:
1 The Plaintiff, Ann Marie Nonkin, is and was at all times relevant hereto, is the owner of
128 Millerton Road, Town of Lakeville, County of Litchfield and the State of Connecticut, having
8
purchased the same with her husband, Paul Nonkin, now deceased, on or about December 2, 2004.
ES
Se
3
Preview
DOCKET NO: LLI-CV-14-6009898-S SUPERIOR COURT ANN MARIE NONKIN JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF LITCHFIELD VS. AT LITCHFIELD MICHAEL AND JUDY PESCHEL, ET AL NOVEMBER 4, 2014 PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED REVISED COMPLAINT FIRST COUNT (AS TO MICHAEL AND JUDY PESCHEL) NEGLIGENCE: i The Plaintiff, Ann Marie Nonkin, is and was at all times relevant hereto, the owner of ns 128 Millerton Road, Town of Lakeville, the County of Litchfield and the State of Connecticut, having ge purchased the same with her husband, Paul Nonkin, now deceased, on or about December 2, 2004. 35 55 2 The Defendants Michael and Judy Peschel are and were the owners of an adjacent parcel °2 a2 known as 140 Millerton Road, Town of Lakeville, County of Litchfield and the State of Connecticut, a6 =F Eg 22 Se Cg immediately to the North of the Nonkin property, having been purchased by them on or about September 17, 2012. 3 The Plaintiff has lived in her home at 128 Millerton Road for many years without any previous issue as to the runoff of water from the Peschels’ predecessors in title. 4. Furthermore, commencing in the: fall of 2012, the Peschels, and/or their agents or employees, began a substantial change and renovations of the environs on their property including, but not limited to, a change of the landscape and topography of their lot in such a way as to divert water and debris onto the Nonkin piece, the creation of swales which act as conduits of water onto the Nonkin property, an addition of a garage and breezeway, increasing the impervious surface on their property, and the connection of downspouts from the gutters on their dwelling to piping directed at the Nonkin piece. The Defendants the Peschels were negligent in the following ways: a. in that they directed water from their roof gutters to downspouts and piping which greatly increased the flow of water onto the Nonkin property, which then caused a decrease in the filtration rate on the property and increasing the rate and volume of runoff of water onto the Nonkin property; gs Se 5 =o b in that they constructed drainage at a variety of locations on their property “5 “Zz connected to underground piping, increasing the volume and rate of water flow onto the ao =e Nonkin property; Eo 22 8e cc. in that they created a diversion off the road on the Northwest corner of their property, leaving a runoff through an open swale along the Westerly line of the Peschel property, which then runs down the Nonkin driveway to the front of the Nonkin home; and this re-routing of the runoff has increased the volume of said runoff onto the Nonkin property; and d in that they dug a swale in the Northeast corner of their property, directing water on the Eastern side of their property across the lawn on the front of the Nonkin home, and said diversion has increased the volume and rate of the flow of water onto the Nonkin property. 6 At some time in the month of May of 2013, the Plaintiff informed the Defendants the Peschels that, due to the changes made to their property, her property had been damaged and continued to be damaged in various ways, including but not limited to, increased water flow onto her property, He mulch, gravel and debris flowing onto her property with said water flow, and said debris blocking her as rs Se 35 drain so that the water could not drain properly causing substantial flooding on her property. “2 d The Defendants the Peschels were further negligent in the following ways: as =e a. in that they increased the flow of water from their property onto the property of Eg 22 8E the plaintiff; b in that such increase of water flow caused mulch, mud and debris to flow from their property onto the property of the plaintiff; and c. in that, after notice was given by the Plaintiff to the Defendants the Peschels of the water flowing onto her property causing substantial damage, they failed to remedy or correct the offending condition, causing further damage to the Plaintiff's property. 8 As a further result of a severe storm on August 28, 2013, which caused water to flow onto the Nonkin property, said water flow was grossly increased by the negligent actions of the Defendants, and the Plaintiff has suffered the following losses: a. Destruction of a Whirlpool Washer and freezer in the basement. b. Due to the water that flowed in from the Defendants’ property, the Plaintiff necessitated extensive cleaning of the basement. Cc. Extensive damage to the walls, ceiling, flooring and perimeter which will He necessitate replacement of wallboard, flooring, total reconstruction of the basement area, BS Soa zs 35 including a wine cellar. eZ d A complete diminution of value of the Plaintiff's extensive wine collection due to a2 ao re exposure to water, mud and debris which caused mold and a rise in temperature, all of Eo 2z SE which was caused by the Defendants’ negligent actions as noted above. €. Extensive damage to the Plaintiff's new driveway which will necessitate action to stop the undermining of the driveway by the water flow from the Defendants’ property. Furthermore, the driveway was paved in 2011, at a cost of approximately $25,000.00, yet the Plaintiff has been unable to seal her pavement as needed due to the excessive water in her driveway. f. Landscaping of the property necessitated by the damage caused to the Plaintiff's Jawn, greenery, shrubs and the like due to the Defendants’ actions. & Extensive damage to furniture, antiques, books, collectibles, phates and mementos caused by the water diverted from the Defendants’ property into the Plaintiff's basement. h The Plaintiff will continue to suffer losses as a result of the Defendant’s negligent actions as noted in paragraph six and will be forced to take additional actions to protect ee aida her property. So ES rs Se =n SECOND COUNT (AS TO MICHAEL AND JUDY PESCHEL) qo “5 IN THE ALTERNATIVE: NEGLIGENCE AS TO PREDECESSOR IN TITLE: °Z ao =e il The Plaintiff, Ann Marie Nonkin, is and was at all times relevant hereto, the owner of Eo Cor 128 Millerton Road, in the Town of Lakeville, County of Litchfield and State of Connecticut, having purchased the same with her husband, Paul Nonkin, now deceased, on or about December 2, 2004. 2 The Defendants Michael and Judy Peschel are and were the owners of an adjacent parcel known as 140 Millerton Road, in the Town of Lakeville, County of Litchfield and State of Connecticut, immediately to the North of the Nonkin property, having been purchased by them on or about September 17, 2012. 3 Commencing on or about May 30, 2013, the Plaintiff notified the Defendants Peschels of the excessive flow of water from their property onto her property, causing significant damage to her property. Furthermore, the Plaintiff walked her property on said date with the Defendant Michael Peschel, notifying him of the mulch, gravel and that mud was flowing from their property onto her property, which, in turn, was destroying her landscaping and leaving large amounts of flooding all over her property. 4 Furthermore, after being notified by the Plaintiff of the existing conditions, including but SB not limited to “puddling” on the property prior to renovations and landscaping done by the Peschels, an Se 33 existing drain that was clogged and not draining properly, and pipes, drains and gutter/leaders that were eZ pointed towards the Nonkin property, the Defendants Peschels were negligent in that they failed to a2 35 =e rectify these existing conditions which were diverting water unlawfully onto the Nonkin property Eo Zz SE causing problems hereinafter as follows: a. in that the flow of water from their property onto the Nonkin property caused mulch, mud and debris to flow from their property onto the property of the plaintiff b in that said flow of water, mulch, mud and debris from the property of the Defendants Peschels to the Plaintiffs property blocking her drain causing flooding in many different areas of the Plaintiff's property; c. in that the gutters, leaders and various drains on the property of the Defendants Peschels were pointed in such a manner to drain and/or divert water onto the Nonkin property; d in that, after they were given notice by the Plaintiff of such conditions, the Defendants the Peschels knew of the damage caused to the Plaintiff's property, yet they failed to remedy or correct the offending condition, causing further damage to the plaintiffs property; ae? ue ¢. in that the Defendants Peschels failure to act contributed to the losses as described SB ee rs Se 35 in Count One, Paragraph 8 of this Amended Revised Complaint. =o “Zs THIRD COUNT (AS TO MICHAEL AND JUDY PESCHEL) NUISANCE: dz oo == 1-8. Paragraphs 1 through 8 of the First Count are hereby made corresponding paragraphs 1 Eo ZZ 8E through 8 of this, the Third Count, as if more fully set forth herein. 9-10. Paragraph 3 through 4 of the Second Count is hereby made paragraph 9 through 10 of this, the Third Count, as if more fully set forth herein. T1. The actions of the Defendants the Peschels have caused an unreasonable interference with the Plaintiffs use of her property. 12, Furthermore, the Defendants’ conduct is and was the proximate cause of this unreasonable interference. 13. As a further result of said nuisance, the Defendants’ actions, as described above, have caused and will continue to cause, severe injury to the Plaintiff's property and to her use and enjoyment thereof. 14. The foregoing events constitute an unreasonable interference with the Plaintiff's use and enjoyment of her property, which is a direct result of the Defendants’ unauthorized activities, all to the Plaintiff's loss and damage. TS. The interference with the Plaintiff's use and enjoyment of her property is a continuing od one. 16. As a result of said nuisance, the Plaintiff has suffered substantial financial losses as stated 76 “Zz in paragraph 8 of the First Count of this Complaint, which were directly caused by the Defendants’ d2 ao unreasonable interference to the Plaintiff's property, and therefore the Plaintiff claims monetary ZZ 8E damages. FOURTH COUNT (AS TO MICHAEL AND JUDY PESCHEL) INJUNCTION: 1-8. Paragraphs 1 through 8 of the First Count are hereby made corresponding paragraphs 1 through 8 of this, the Second Count, as if more fully set forth herein. 9-10. Paragraph 3 through 4 of the Second Count is hereby made paragraph 9 through 10 of this, the Fourth Count, as if more fully set forth herein. 11-16. Paragraphs 11 through 16 of the Third Count are hereby made corresponding paragraphs 11 through 16 of this, the Fourth Count, as if more fully set forth herein. 19, The Plaintiff requests an injunctive relief as there is no adequate remedy at law to prevent further damages to the Plaintiffs property. FIFTH COUNT ( AS TO UPCOUNTRY SERVICES OF SHARON, INC.) NEGLIGENCE: 1 The Plaintiff, Ann Marie Nonkin, is and was at all times relevant hereto, is the owner of 128 Millerton Road, Town of Lakeville, County of Litchfield and the State of Connecticut, having 8 purchased the same with her husband, Paul Nonkin, now deceased, on or about December 2, 2004. ES Se 3