## Facts

- James V. Bombaci (defendant) sold residential real estate to Terry D. Magun (plaintiff) by general warranty deed dated August 4, 1978.
- The deed conveyed the premises described in the deed “with the buildings and all other improvements thereon” and covenanted that the premises were “free and clear of all encumbrances” except those listed in the deed.
- The deed did not identify, define, or locate any driveway or sewer facilities as separate items, and it did not purport to convey any part of the neighboring parcel.
- At the time of the sale, both sides assumed that the adjacent driveway and the sewer lateral serving the house were part of what Magun would receive with the property.
- After the conveyance, Magun discovered that portions of the driveway and the sewer lateral were physically located on an adjoining lot that Bombaci did not own at the time of the conveyance.
- Magun sued for damages, claiming Bombaci breached the deed’s covenant against encumbrances because the driveway and sewer line were so related to reasonable use of the property that they should be treated as “appurtenances” covered by the deed’s covenants.

## Issues

1. Does the fact that parts of a driveway and sewer line are located on a neighbor’s land constitute an “encumbrance” on the fee simple estate conveyed by a general warranty deed describing only the grantor’s parcel?
2. Are off-parcel portions of a driveway and sewer lateral “appurtenances” that pass with the conveyed land such that the seller’s lack of title to those portions breaches the deed’s covenants?

## Decision

- The Connecticut Superior Court entered judgment for the defendants.
- The court held that the plaintiffs failed to prove a breach of the covenant against encumbrances (or other deed covenants) based solely on the driveway and sewer lateral extending onto land not described in the deed.
- Because the adjoining land was neither conveyed nor described, the plaintiffs had no claim under the deed covenants for failure of title to portions of the driveway or sewer lying on the neighbor’s parcel.

## Legal Principles

- Land does not pass as an appurtenant to other land; a deed conveying a described parcel does not, by describing “appurtenances,” convey title to additional, undescribed land.
- A covenant against encumbrances protects the grantee against legally enforceable burdens or interests affecting the estate the deed actually conveys; it does not guarantee that useful features assumed to exist within the boundaries are, in fact, located entirely on the conveyed parcel.
- A physical condition showing that an improvement extends onto neighboring property does not, without a deeded right affecting the described parcel, create an encumbrance on the title to the described parcel for purposes of the covenant against encumbrances.
- When a deed contains no description or grant of an interest in adjacent property, the seller’s lack of title to off-parcel portions of improvements does not establish liability under the deed covenants.
- The court noted that this type of boundary-related problem helps explain why purchasers often require a survey to confirm the location of improvements on the land being purchased.

## Conclusion

Because the deed conveyed only the described premises (with improvements on that premises) and did not convey or describe any part of the adjoining lot, the off-parcel portions of the driveway and sewer lateral were not conveyed as “appurtenances” and did not amount to an encumbrance on the title to the parcel conveyed; therefore, judgment properly entered for the defendants on the plaintiffs’ deed-covenant claims.


Magun v. Bombaci, 492 A.2d 235 (1985)