Coyle Crete, LLC v. Nevins
2012 Conn. App. LEXIS 384
Conn. App. Ct.2012Background
- Plaintiff Coyle Crete, LLC sued Six Flags New England for concrete-work damages; Six Flags was represented by defendant Nevins in that action.
- A money judgment of $18,445.66 (including costs and postjudgment interest) was entered against Six Flags on May 11, 2005.
- Nevins informed plaintiff that Six Flags would satisfy the judgment without court enforcement, and funds were allegedly paid on June 10, 2005.
- Nevins later surrendered the payment to a third-party creditor after receiving an invalid execution against the plaintiff in June 2005.
- In August 2005 Six Flags filed a motion to determine that the judgment had been satisfied; the court granted it, determining the judgment was satisfied.
- In June 2006, plaintiff filed this action asserting malfeasance, conversion, theft, and related claims; Nevins raised collateral estoppel and res judicata defenses in 2009 and 2010 proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether collateral estoppel bars plaintiff’s claims | Collateral estoppel applies to issues decided in the Six Flags action | The prior ruling did not decide the present issues; preclusion should apply | Collateral estoppel not applicable; triable issues exist |
| Whether res judicata bars plaintiff’s claims | Mutuality of parties and identity of claims are present | No mutuality; Six Flags was not a party to the present action; privity unclear | Res judicata inapplicable; issues not identical and not adequately identical parties |
| Whether the prior judgment-satisfaction ruling forecloses relitigation of malfeasance | The prior ruling addressed only satisfaction, not alleged malfeasance | The issues were intertwined; collateral estoppel should apply | Not foreclosed; issues were distinct and not essential to the prior decision |
Key Cases Cited
- Dowling v. Finley Associates, Inc., 248 Conn. 364 (1999) (preclusion requires showing that issues were necessarily decided in prior action)
- Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Jones, 220 Conn. 285 (1991) (collateral estoppel fair application; privity considerations)
- State v. Ellis, 197 Conn. 436 (1985) (flexible approach to finality and preclusion; considerations of fairness)
- Mazziotti v. Allstate Ins. Co., 240 Conn. 799 (1997) (privity and mutuality in res judicata; party relationships matter)
- Commissioner of Environmental Protection v. Connecticut Building Wrecking Co., 227 Conn. 175 (1993) (mutuality and finality principles in preclusion)