163 Conn.App. 282
Conn. App. Ct.2016Background
- Plaintiffs Lawrence and Christopher Buck sued the Town of Berlin alleging inverse condemnation after the town installed gates and concrete blocks on Lamentation Mountain Pass Road (Quincy Trail area), blocking vehicular access to their property.
- The Bucks were plaintiffs in an earlier 1997 multi-count suit (Tighe v. Berlin) in which counts 3 and 4 alleged the town’s gate/blocks denied access and that the road had not been abandoned; relief sought there included injunctive removal of the gate.
- In the present action (filed 2012/2013), the Bucks sought money damages for a taking (inverse condemnation) and enforcement of the town’s promise to provide keys to owners.
- The Town moved for summary judgment asserting res judicata: the present claim arises from the same transaction litigated in 1997 and the plaintiffs had a full opportunity to litigate it then.
- The trial court denied summary judgment, reasoning a factual dispute (the Bucks never received a key) left open whether they had opportunity to fully litigate.
- The Appellate Court reversed, holding (1) the 1997 and present suits arise from the same transaction and (2) the Bucks had an adequate opportunity to litigate the claim in 1997; Cone v. Waterford (administrative appeal/§13a-49) did not apply because the 1997 case was not brought under §13a-49 procedures.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the present inverse condemnation claim is precluded by res judicata as arising from the same transaction litigated in 1997 | The present claim is legally distinct (different theory—takings/damages versus prescriptive/right-to-use or non-abandonment relief in 1997) | Both actions arise from the same underlying facts (town blocked road with gate/blocks); transactional test bars relitigation | Held: precluded — same transaction/series; present claim could have been raised in 1997 |
| Whether plaintiffs had an adequate opportunity to litigate damages in the 1997 action (i.e., whether Cone v. Waterford prevents preclusion) | Cone allows a separate damages action only after an administrative/§13a-62 proceeding; plaintiffs could not have sought damages in the 1997 action if it was a §13a-49 appeal | The 1997 complaint was not a §13a-49/§13a-62 appeal (it did not allege discontinuance/seek committee procedure), so Cone is inapplicable and plaintiffs had the opportunity to litigate damages then | Held: plaintiffs had adequate opportunity; Cone inapplicable because the 1997 action was not brought under §13a-49/§13a-62 procedures |
| Whether a factual dispute (plaintiffs never received a key) precluded summary judgment on res judicata grounds | Plaintiffs asserted they never received a key, so a factual issue exists whether they had full opportunity to litigate | The opportunity to litigate is a legal question; plaintiffs failed to identify a material factual dispute preventing preclusion | Held: no genuine issue of material fact on res judicata; entitlement to summary judgment for defendant |
| Whether summary judgment should be granted for the Town based on res judicata | N/A (defense by Town) | Town argued it showed entitlement to judgment as a matter of law because claim was precluded | Held: reversed trial court; Appellate Court directed grant of summary judgment to Town on count one |
Key Cases Cited
- Savvidis v. Norwalk, 129 Conn. App. 406 (Conn. App. 2011) (explaining claim preclusion principles and transactional test)
- Joe’s Pizza, Inc. v. Aetna Life & Casualty Co., 236 Conn. 863 (Conn. 1996) (scope of preclusion depends on prior adjudication)
- Isaac v. Truck Service, Inc., 253 Conn. 416 (Conn. 2000) (policy rationales for res judicata and its flexibility)
- Cone v. Waterford, 158 Conn. 276 (Conn. 1969) (statutory §13a-49/§13a-62 administrative-type appeals cannot award damages; separate damages action may follow)
- Weiss v. Weiss, 297 Conn. 446 (Conn. 2010) (res judicata can extinguish claims even if different theories/remedies would be raised later)