Preview
SUPERIOR COURT
DOCKET NO. LLI-CV14-6009898-S
ANN MARIE NONKIN JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF LITCHFIELD
VS. AT LITCHFIELD
MICHAEL PESCHEL, ET AL MAY 25, 2016
PLAINTIFE’S POST-TRIAL BRIEF
submits this post-trial
The Plaintiff, Ann Marie Nonkin (hereinafter known as the “Plaintiff”), hereby
ee
hd
SB
ee argument, she is entitled to
gs
Se
brief showing that, based on the evidence produced at trial, caselaw and legal
22
xo
(hereinafter
“5 judgment and an i injunction on her claims against the Defendants, Michael and Judy Peschel
“2
53
sz known as the “Defendants).
ao
=e
Eg , Connecticut
The Plaintiff is the owner of the property known as 128 Millerton Road in Lakeville
of the property known as 140
(hereinafter known as “Plaintiff's property”). The Defendants are the owners
property”). The Plaintiff
Millerton Road in Lakeville, Connecticut (hereinafter known as “Defendants’
and renovated the environs
alleged that the Defendants, beginning in the fall of 2012, substantially changed
their property in that
and topography of their prop: erty through landscaping and the change in the slope of
their property, all without taking
they added drainage to their property and in that they built a garage on
proper safeguards to protect the Plaintiffs property from damage.
Trial was held in this matter over six days between April 14 and April 22, 2016, with approximately
90 exhibits entered into evidence by the parties. The evidence at trial demonstrated that the Defendants,
from the time of purchase of their home through the present, made many changes to their property, including
but not limited to the building of a garage, landscaping, changes in the topography of their property and
changes to the drainage on their property, creating a diversion of water onto the Plaintiffs property and
causing damage to her home and property. Through the testimony of the Plaintiff and witnesses, the
%e
ae
22 deposition of the previous owner, John Burkhart, and exhibits entered at trial, the Plaintiff showed how the
Es
35 actions of the Defendants caused significant damages to her property with substantial monetary
go
“6
*Z
consequences. The Defendants’ failure to take proper measures to safeguard the Plaintiff's property from
sz
wo
=e
Eo water being diverted onto her property from theirs and their failure to prevent mulch, mud, hay and debris
Zz
Sz
Or
flowing through the water from their property onto hers caused a severe blockage to her drain, which
resulted in flooding on numerous occasions to her home and property. Such negligence by the Defendants
caused extensive damage to her wine collection, her basement and her personal belongings in her home. In
Falco, our Supreme Court reiterated the well-established legal principle that “/a] landowner cannot use or
improve his land so as to increase the volume of the surface waters which flow from it onto the land of
others, nor can he discharge surface waters from his land onto the land of others ina different course. from
2
this natural flow, if by so doing he causes substantial damage.” JMS Newberry, LLC v. Kaman Aerospace
Corporation et al, 149 Conn.App 630, 90 A.3d 249 (2014). The Plaintiff showed throughout trial how,
through all of the changes made to their property, the Defendants changed the natural flow of surface water
causing significant damages to the Plaintiffs property and home.
The Defendants testified, through their witnesses, that the damage done by the water, mulch, hay,
mud and debris was due to heavy rain storms that were unlike storms in the past. They testified the work
done on their property did not cause the damage to the Plaintiff's property, the Plaintiff lived downhill and
ae
ge water flows downhill. They also claimed that their property was receiving water from Route 44 which then
gs
gS
Se
=p
ue
ge ground cover, large amounts of mulch were placed on the various gardens on the Defendants’ property.
gS
Se
32
<2 During storms, mulch, hay, gravel and debris washes down the right-of-way and various other places from
*Z
the Defendants’ property onto the Plaintiff's property, ultimately clogging her drains and causing severe
aS
=—
Eo flooding to her home. In lesser storms, the water will flow down from the Defendants’ property, bringing
ZZ
8E
with it debris and mulch, causing constant ponding of ‘water on the Plaintiffs property. All of these different
changes to the Defendants’ property such as the drainage, removal of plantings and ground cover, and new
structures on the Defendants’ property caused the Plaintiff*s property to repeatedly flood and, furthermore,
has caused her property to continually have standing water which, during the winter months, froze and
continues to freeze, causing a very dangerous environment for Ms. Nonkin on her property. Expert Richard
Calkins testified as to the significant icing that occurred on her property. He testified that her driveway and
13
in front of her home had ice approximately four to six inches thick, and you could see running water through
the grass on the easterly property line and on the west side of her property. This continual running of water
creates thick ice in the winter causing very dangerous conditions on the Plaintiff's property and further
causes ice to form over her drain, blocking the drain and making it non-functional. Furthermore, the ice has
caused significant damages to her driveway as well.
Expert Richard Calkins testified as to the importance of the history of the Plaintiffs property. It was
his opinion in talking to Ms. Nonkin regarding any prior flooding and the history of her drain would help
oe
RS
So him determine whether the changes the Defendants made to their property had a significance on the flooding
ES
Se
32
Preview
SUPERIOR COURT DOCKET NO. LLI-CV14-6009898-S ANN MARIE NONKIN JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF LITCHFIELD VS. AT LITCHFIELD MICHAEL PESCHEL, ET AL MAY 25, 2016 PLAINTIFE’S POST-TRIAL BRIEF submits this post-trial The Plaintiff, Ann Marie Nonkin (hereinafter known as the “Plaintiff”), hereby ee hd SB ee argument, she is entitled to gs Se brief showing that, based on the evidence produced at trial, caselaw and legal 22 xo (hereinafter “5 judgment and an i injunction on her claims against the Defendants, Michael and Judy Peschel “2 53 sz known as the “Defendants). ao =e Eg , Connecticut The Plaintiff is the owner of the property known as 128 Millerton Road in Lakeville of the property known as 140 (hereinafter known as “Plaintiff's property”). The Defendants are the owners property”). The Plaintiff Millerton Road in Lakeville, Connecticut (hereinafter known as “Defendants’ and renovated the environs alleged that the Defendants, beginning in the fall of 2012, substantially changed their property in that and topography of their prop: erty through landscaping and the change in the slope of their property, all without taking they added drainage to their property and in that they built a garage on proper safeguards to protect the Plaintiffs property from damage. Trial was held in this matter over six days between April 14 and April 22, 2016, with approximately 90 exhibits entered into evidence by the parties. The evidence at trial demonstrated that the Defendants, from the time of purchase of their home through the present, made many changes to their property, including but not limited to the building of a garage, landscaping, changes in the topography of their property and changes to the drainage on their property, creating a diversion of water onto the Plaintiffs property and causing damage to her home and property. Through the testimony of the Plaintiff and witnesses, the %e ae 22 deposition of the previous owner, John Burkhart, and exhibits entered at trial, the Plaintiff showed how the Es 35 actions of the Defendants caused significant damages to her property with substantial monetary go “6 *Z consequences. The Defendants’ failure to take proper measures to safeguard the Plaintiff's property from sz wo =e Eo water being diverted onto her property from theirs and their failure to prevent mulch, mud, hay and debris Zz Sz Or flowing through the water from their property onto hers caused a severe blockage to her drain, which resulted in flooding on numerous occasions to her home and property. Such negligence by the Defendants caused extensive damage to her wine collection, her basement and her personal belongings in her home. In Falco, our Supreme Court reiterated the well-established legal principle that “/a] landowner cannot use or improve his land so as to increase the volume of the surface waters which flow from it onto the land of others, nor can he discharge surface waters from his land onto the land of others ina different course. from 2 this natural flow, if by so doing he causes substantial damage.” JMS Newberry, LLC v. Kaman Aerospace Corporation et al, 149 Conn.App 630, 90 A.3d 249 (2014). The Plaintiff showed throughout trial how, through all of the changes made to their property, the Defendants changed the natural flow of surface water causing significant damages to the Plaintiffs property and home. The Defendants testified, through their witnesses, that the damage done by the water, mulch, hay, mud and debris was due to heavy rain storms that were unlike storms in the past. They testified the work done on their property did not cause the damage to the Plaintiff's property, the Plaintiff lived downhill and ae ge water flows downhill. They also claimed that their property was receiving water from Route 44 which then gs gS Se =p ue ge ground cover, large amounts of mulch were placed on the various gardens on the Defendants’ property. gS Se 32 <2 During storms, mulch, hay, gravel and debris washes down the right-of-way and various other places from *Z the Defendants’ property onto the Plaintiff's property, ultimately clogging her drains and causing severe aS =— Eo flooding to her home. In lesser storms, the water will flow down from the Defendants’ property, bringing ZZ 8E with it debris and mulch, causing constant ponding of ‘water on the Plaintiffs property. All of these different changes to the Defendants’ property such as the drainage, removal of plantings and ground cover, and new structures on the Defendants’ property caused the Plaintiff*s property to repeatedly flood and, furthermore, has caused her property to continually have standing water which, during the winter months, froze and continues to freeze, causing a very dangerous environment for Ms. Nonkin on her property. Expert Richard Calkins testified as to the significant icing that occurred on her property. He testified that her driveway and 13 in front of her home had ice approximately four to six inches thick, and you could see running water through the grass on the easterly property line and on the west side of her property. This continual running of water creates thick ice in the winter causing very dangerous conditions on the Plaintiff's property and further causes ice to form over her drain, blocking the drain and making it non-functional. Furthermore, the ice has caused significant damages to her driveway as well. Expert Richard Calkins testified as to the importance of the history of the Plaintiffs property. It was his opinion in talking to Ms. Nonkin regarding any prior flooding and the history of her drain would help oe RS So him determine whether the changes the Defendants made to their property had a significance on the flooding ES Se 32