PMG Land Associates, L.P. v. Harbour Landing Condominium Ass'n
2012 Conn. App. LEXIS 243
Conn. App. Ct.2012Background
- PMG Land Associates developed Harbour Landing; three adjacent parcels, owned by PMG, housed amenities.
- PMG marketed the parcels and declared the amenities unavailable to Harbour Landing owners.
- In 2001 Harbour Landing sued PMG for prescriptive easement and unfair trade practices; lis pendens was recorded.
- In Oct 2003 PMG filed a suit against Harbour Landing and others seeking to quiet title, slander of title, and tortious interference; settlement noted but cases dismissed in 2004.
- November 2004 PMG commenced a second action with three counts, including tortious interference with business expectancies; discovery and revision proceedings followed.
- January 2007 court granted nonsuit; January 2008 PMG filed a new action asserting the same three counts; February 2008 motion to dismiss based on limitations; appellate decision focuses on count three.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether count three is timely under §52-577 or saved by §52-592 | PMG argued ongoing 2005–2006 conduct fits within 3-year window | Harbour Landing argued time-barred by §52-577 with no saving under §52-592 | Count three allegations support proceeding; not barred at this stage |
| Whether dismissal under §52-592 was proper | Dismissal inappropriate; §52-592 analysis misapplied | §52-592 could bar; motion proper vehicle | Court erred in granting dismissal on §52-592 grounds; remand for count three only |
| Whether lis pendens timing affected tortious interference claim | Notice of lis pendens ongoing interference after dismissal | Removal avenues exist; not dispositive to bar claim | Lis pendens timing not fatal; should be addressed on remand; count three may proceed |
Key Cases Cited
- Peruta v. Commissioner of Public Safety, 128 Conn.App. 777 (Conn. App. 2011) (de novo review of jurisdictional questions under 52-592/52-577 analysis)
- Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London v. Cooperman, 289 Conn. 383 (Conn. 2008) (statutory limitations questions are questions of law, reviewed de novo)
- Valentine v. LaBow, 95 Conn.App. 436 (Conn. App. 2006) (occurrence statute; accrual when act occurs)
- Capers v. Lee, 239 Conn. 265 (Conn. 1996) (court may consider certain §52-592 arguments with motion to dismiss)
- LaBow v. LaBow, 85 Conn.App. 746 (Conn. App. 2004) (practice-related objections to motions and timing under 10-31)