Wood v. Amer
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
****************************************************** The officially released date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the officially released date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the officially released date. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ****************************************************** DOROTHY WOOD v. LAILA AMER ET AL. (SC 16199) Borden, Norcott, Katz, Sullivan and Vertefeuille, Js. Argued May 25 officially released July 4, 2000 Counsel Frederic S. Ury, with whom, on the brief, was Deborah M. Garskof, for the appellant (named defendant). Stanley A. Twardy, Jr., with whom, on the brief, were Deborah S. Gordon and Keith P. Carroll, for the appellee (plaintiff). Opinion PER CURIAM. In this certified appeal, the plaintiff, Dorothy Wood, appeals from the judgment of the Appellate Court reversing a judgment of the trial court. The trial court s judgment denied the plaintiff s request for a permanent injunction prohibiting the named defendant, Laila Amer, from building a home on a lot located across the street from the plaintiff s property in Greenwich. The plaintiff had sought enforcement of certain restrictions contained in the named defendant s chain of title. The trial court rendered judgment for the named defendant on the basis of the statute of limitations set forth in General Statutes § 52-575a.1 The Appellate Court reversed the trial court s judgment and remanded the case for consideration of the merits of the plaintiff s claim. Wood v. Amer, 54 Conn. App. 601, 609, 736 A.2d 162 (1999). We granted the named defendant s petition for certification to appeal, limited to the following two issues: Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that: (1) the Brush deed contained two separate restrictive covenants, and that, therefore, the grantor intended that only one house was to be located on either lot 10 or lot 11; and (2) the statute of limitations contained in General Statutes § 52575a had not expired with respect to the plaintiff s claim of a violation of a covenant not to build? Wood v. Amer, 251 Conn. 908, 739 A.2d 265 (1999). This appeal followed. Having reviewed the briefs, the record and the arguments of the parties, we conclude that the judgment of the Appellate Court should be affirmed. In its thorough and thoughtful opinion, the Appellate Court properly considered the issues on which we granted certification. See Wood v. Amer, supra, 54 Conn. App. 601. The judgment of the Appellate Court is affirmed. 1 General Statutes § 52-575a provides: Action to enforce recorded private restrictions or notations on maps. No action or any other type of court proceeding shall be brought to enforce a private restriction recorded in the land records of the municipality in which the property is located or a notation on a filed map pertaining to the use of privately owned land, the type of structures that may be erected thereon or the location of same unless such action or proceeding shall be commenced within three years of the time that the person seeking to enforce such restriction had actual or constructive knowledge of such violation. This section shall be deemed not to apply to any private restriction or notation pertaining to (a) any public utility easement; (b) any right-of-way; (c) any park or open space land; (d) any private driveway, roadway or street, or (e) any sewer line or water line.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
