152 Conn.App. 69
Conn. App. Ct.2014Background
- Plaintiff Charles Mierzejewski and defendant Crary Brownell own adjoining Lake Bashan parcels; Brownell’s parcel is landlocked and conveyed with a deeded right-of-way across the plaintiff’s land.
- A 1958 Foreman deed granted a right-of-way “20 feet in width over its entire distance” across land retained by the Foremans (later the plaintiff’s parcel).
- First action (bench trial): Judge Aurigemma held plaintiff failed to extinguish the right-of-way; found the right-of-way was 20 feet wide and located on the plaintiff’s property; appellate court affirmed (Mierzejewski v. Brownell).
- Second action (against neighboring Laneris): Judge Bear found the common boundary was a stone wall and that the right-of-way ran in the old highway bed (implying potential 10 ft width in places); the Laneris appealed and the Appellate Court reversed, holding the boundary was the center line of the old highway (Mierzejewski v. Laneri).
- Third action (present case): plaintiff sued Brownell seeking a determination that parts of Judge Bear’s findings preclude Brownell from asserting a full 20-foot right-of-way; Brownell moved for summary judgment invoking res judicata/collateral estoppel. Judge Aurigemma granted summary judgment for Brownell, concluding width and validity were already finally determined.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the first action conclusively determined the right-of-way width | Mierzejewski: first action only decided extinguishment; width was not an issue; appellate footnote confirms location—not width—was unresolved | Brownell: first action expressly found the right-of-way is 20 feet wide and valid; that determination is final | Court: First action conclusively determined validity and 20-foot width; summary judgment for Brownell affirmed |
| Whether portions of Judge Bear’s findings in second action remain preclusive despite reversal on appeal | Mierzejewski: certain trial findings (e.g., that ROW would be 10 ft along Laneris land) should have preclusive effect against Brownell because Brownell didn’t appeal | Brownell: Appellate Court reversed Judge Bear’s title ruling; those trial findings cannot be given collateral effect now | Court: No merit to selectively giving preclusive effect to portions of a reversed judgment; not necessary to reach because width already decided in first action |
| Whether plaintiff’s claims in third action were barred by res judicata (claim preclusion) | Mierzejewski: argues issues not finally litigated so claim not barred | Brownell: claims were or could have been litigated in first two actions; res judicata bars relitigation | Court: Res judicata/issue preclusion apply; all claims were or could have been litigated earlier; summary judgment proper |
| Whether the trial court’s description of the suit as "vexatious" was improper dicta | Mierzejewski: challenges characterization as improper | Brownell: characterization not a substantive element of judgment | Court: Statement was dicta, unnecessary to resolution, and has no precedential effect |
Key Cases Cited
- Mierzejewski v. Brownell, 102 Conn. App. 413 (Conn. App. 2007) (appellate court affirmed trial court judgment rejecting extinguishment claim and discussing ROW location)
- Mierzejewski v. Laneri, 130 Conn. App. 306 (Conn. App. 2011) (reversed trial court’s boundary ruling; held boundary is center line of old highway)
- Massey v. Branford, 119 Conn. App. 453 (Conn. App. 2010) (explains res judicata and collateral estoppel principles and their application)