Landmark Investment Group, LLC v. Chung Family Realty Partnership, LLC
2012 WL 3079225
Conn. App. Ct.2012Background
- Landmark Investment Group, LLC and Chung Family Realty Partnership, LLC entered a June 30, 2005 purchase and sale agreement for property in Plainville, with a dispute arising regarding performance.
- Landmark I (2006–2009) alleged breach of contract and CUTPA; the trial court found breach and violation of CUTPA and awarded specific performance and fees, which the appellate court affirmed in 2010.
- Foreclosure proceedings for unpaid Plainville taxes on the property began April 19, 2010, with total taxes about $131,000.
- On December 3, 2010, Landmark filed a prejudgment remedy application against Chung for alleged breach of the agreement related to unpaid taxes, seeking $4.5 million.
- An evidentiary hearing on January 13, 2011 led to a memorandum on January 14, 2011 granting the remedy in the amount of $4.5 million, after resolving defenses of laches, waiver, and res judicata against the plaintiff.
- The court found the injury occurred when Plainville foreclosed in 2010 and held Kane’s lost-profits appraisal supported the $4.5 million amount, with no rebuttal evidence from Chung.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether res judicata bars the present claim | Res judicata does not apply because injury postdates the prior judgment and the new breach concerns ongoing tax issues. | The cases share the same contract, witnesses, and damages; the second action arises from the same transaction and should be barred. | Res judicata does not apply; post-judgment injuries may support a new action. |
| Whether a prejudgment remedy of $4.5 million was properly awarded | Expert Kane’s methodology showed probable loss and reasonable lost-profits estimates supporting $4.5 million. | Kane’s report rested on speculation without tenants, engineering plans, or definitive facts; insufficient to prove probable cause. | Court did not clearly err; Kane’s testimony and methods supported probable cause for the $4.5 million remedy. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cadle Co. v. Gabel, 69 Conn. App. 279 (2002) (res judicata continuity and transaction-based analysis; post-judgment events may create new claims)
- Lighthouse Landings, Inc. v. Connecticut Light & Power Co., 300 Conn. 325 (2011) (flexible application of res judicata balancing finality with policy interests)
- Delahunty v. Massachusetts Mutual Life Ins. Co., 236 Conn. 582 (1996) (transactional test for res judicata in comparing second-action pleadings with first-action judgment)
- In re Juvenile Appeal (83-DE), 190 Conn. 310 (1983) (post-judgment developments can give rise to new claims in some contexts)
- Lawlor v. National Screen Service Corp., 349 U.S. 322 (1955) (supporting framework for the transactional approach to res judicata)
- Beverly Hills Concepts, Inc. v. Schatz & Schatz, Ribicoff & Kotkin, 247 Conn. 48 (1998) (reasonableness standard for damages based on lost profits in certain contexts)
- Porter v. State, 241 Conn. 57 (1997) (Daubert gatekeeping principles adopted into state law for expert evidence)
- Crotty v. Tuccio Development, Inc., 119 Conn. App. 775 (2010) (standard of review for prejudgment remedies)