140 Conn. App. 500
Conn. App. Ct.2013Background
- Kleinman and Chapnick married in 1979; dissolution judgment entered March 12, 2010.
- Kleinman filed a conversion action on October 17, 2011 asserting defendant wrongfully retained personal property from the marital home.
- Defendant moved on January 10, 2012 to dismiss under the prior pending action doctrine in light of a prior case (Kleinman v. Chapnick, FST-FA-08-4013764-S).
- Court granted dismissal on April 18, 2012 after comparing the dissolution judgment and the conversion complaint, finding the actions virtually alike.
- Court analyzed the applicable framework (exactly alike, virtually alike, or insufficiently similar) per Bayer v. Showmotion and related authorities.
- Plaintiff appeals the dismissal arguing misapplication of the doctrine; the appellate court affirms the dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the two actions were virtually alike for purposes of the doctrine | Kleinman argues actions are not virtually alike; different remedies. | Chapnick contends the actions are virtually alike; same underlying rights and property items. | Yes; the actions were virtually alike and dismissal was proper. |
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion in applying the doctrine | Kleinman asserts the court erred in its discretion given lack of exactness. | Chapnick contends discretion properly exercised given underlying rights and items. | No; court did not abuse discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Selimoglu v. Phimvongsa, 119 Conn. App. 645 (2010) (framework for prior pending action doctrine; applicability in determining similarity of actions)
- Modzelewski v. William Raveis Real Estate, Inc., 65 Conn. App. 708 (2001) (similarity analysis under prior pending action doctrine)
- Bayer v. Showmotion, Inc., 292 Conn. 381 (2009) (establishes three-step framework; trial court assesses exact/alike/virtual similarity; review is plenary on similarity)
- Beaudoin v. Town Oil Co., 207 Conn. 575 (1988) (policy rationale: avoid burdens on court dockets)
- Pecan v. Madigan, 97 Conn. App. 617 (2006) (prior pending action doctrine invoked via motion to dismiss; not jurisdictional)
- Halpern v. Board of Education, 196 Conn. 647 (1985) (discussion of doctrine and related considerations)
- In re Shonna K., 77 Conn. App. 246 (2003) (jurisdictional note regarding Superior Court divisions)