130 Conn. App. 806
Conn. App. Ct.2011Background
- Nipmuc Properties, LLC and Summitwood Development, LLC sue the City of Meriden to quiet title to a 52‑acre parcel, claiming a leasehold right.
- Nipmuc I (2002) sought declaratory relief on the escrowed lease and delivery of the lease from escrow; siting council approval was pivotal.
- After Nipmuc I, title to the parcel passed to Meriden Gas Turbines, and then Meriden acquired title to the parcel.
- In 2007–2008 Nipmuc and Summitwood filed the present action alleging failure to honor the lease and seeking to quiet title; defendant asserted res judicata.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in 2010, concluding the present claims were barred by res judicata; court on appeal affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether res judicata bars the present claims | Nipmuc argues the leasehold and escrow issues are distinct from Nipmuc I | Meriden contends the present claims arise from the same transaction and are barred | Yes, barred by res judicata |
| Whether genuine issues of material fact exist as to the lease's intent to convey rights independent of possession | Nipmuc argues intent creates a real right regardless of escrow delivery | Meriden argues intent cannot defeat escrow condition; essential facts are undisputed | Moot, due to res judicata; issue not reached on the merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Bender v. Bender, 292 Conn. 696 (2009) (res judicata applies to relitigation of related claims)
- Connecticut National Bank v. Rytman, 241 Conn. 24 (1997) (adequacy of opportunity to litigate governs preclusion)
- DiPietro v. Farmington Sports Arena, LLC, 123 Conn.App. 583 (2010) (transactional approach to res judicata)
- Nipmuc Properties, LLC v. PDC-El Paso Meriden, LLC, 103 Conn.App. 90 (2007) (conditions precedent to lease delivery; escrow dispute central)
- Isaac v. Truck Service, Inc., 253 Conn. 416 (2000) (preclusion applies to claims that could have been made)
- Powell v. Infinity Ins. Co., 282 Conn. 594 (2007) (privity and collateral estoppel considerations in preclusion)
- Gateway, Kelso & Co. v. West Hartford No. 1, LLC, 126 Conn.App. 578 (2011) (summary judgment standards; plenary review of res judicata)
- Mazziotti v. Allstate Ins. Co., 240 Conn. 799 (1997) (scope of privity for res judicata)