Sec. 47-33h. Excepted interests. - Connecticut Statutes

      Sec. 47-33h. Excepted interests. Sections 47-33b to 47-33l, inclusive, shall not be applied to bar any lessor or successor of the lessor as a reversioner of the right to possession on the expiration of any lease or to bar or extinguish any easement or interest in the nature of an easement, or any rights granted, excepted or reserved by the instrument creating such easement or interest, including any right for future use, if (1) the existence of such easement or interest is evidenced by the location beneath, upon or above any part of the land described in such instrument of any pipe, valve, road, wire, cable, conduit, duct, sewer, track, hole, tower or other physical facility and whether or not the existence of such facility is observable, or to bar, extinguish or otherwise affect any interest of the United States, of this state or any political subdivision thereof, of any public service company as defined in section 16-1 or of any natural gas company, or (2) such easement or interest is a conservation restriction, as defined in section 47-42a, that is held by a land trust or nonprofit organization.

      (1967, P.A. 553, S. 7; P.A. 78-331, S. 18, 58; P.A. 01-118, S. 3.)

      History: P.A. 78-331 corrected misspelling, substituting "excepted" for "accepted"; P.A. 01-118 made technical changes for purposes of gender neutrality and added provisions re exception for easements or interests that are conservation restrictions and are held by a land trust or nonprofit organization.

      Cited. 183 C. 59. Cited. 219 C. 81. Marketable Title Act, Sec. 47-33b et seq. cited. Id. Cited. 239 C. 199. Marketable Title Act cited. Id.

      Cited. 3 CA 550. Conn. Marketable Title Act cited. Id. Cited. 44 CA 683. Marketability of Title Act cited. Id. Cited. 46 CA 525. Marketable Title Act, Sec. 47-33b et seq. cited. Id.

      Cited. 34 CS 31.

      Subdiv. (1):

      Trial court properly concluded that pursuant to subdiv., the easement over plaintiff's property as of 1996 deed was limited to the fixed location of three existing conduits, which constituted partial exercise of the easement, and that because plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence of damages resulting from partial encumbrance of the property, defendants were entitled to a directed verdict. 270 C. 487.