PMG Land Associates, L.P. v. Harbour Landing Condominium Assn., Inc.
161 A.3d 596
Conn. App. Ct.2017Background
- PMG (plaintiff) owned land planned as phases III–V adjacent to Harbour Landing (defendants), who owned phases I–II. In 2000 PMG listed the land for sale.
- Defendants sued in 2001 seeking a prescriptive easement and recorded a lis pendens over the plaintiff’s development parcels; the lis pendens was partially narrowed by court orders in 2003 and 2004.
- Both the defendants’ 2001 action and the plaintiff’s 2003 quiet-title/slander-of-title/tortious-interference action were dismissed in May–June 2004 after settlement negotiations that did not result in formal withdrawals.
- PMG filed a new complaint in November 2004 asserting vexatious litigation and tortious interference; that case was nonsuited for discovery failures in January 2007.
- In January 2008 PMG filed the present action (same substantive claims as 2004). Defendants moved to dismiss/for summary judgment asserting the tort claim was barred by the three-year statute of limitations. Trial court granted summary judgment; this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the failure to remove the lis pendens tolled the 3-year statute of limitations under a continuing course of conduct theory | The continuing duty to release the lis pendens tolled the limitations period until the lis pendens was actually released in 2005–2006 | The failure to release was a single omission when the underlying action was dismissed in May 2004 and does not create a continuing course of conduct | Court held the omission was a single act (not a continuing duty) and did not toll the statute of limitations |
| Whether other tortious acts within the limitations period created a continuing course of conduct | There were additional wrongful acts (denial/impairment of access in 2005; bad-faith dealings with buyer through 2006) that fall within three years before Jan 2008 | Plaintiff failed to produce evidence creating a genuine factual dispute that defendants committed tortious acts within the limitations window | Court held plaintiff failed to show genuine issues of material fact as to other tortious acts within the relevant 3-year period |
| Appropriateness of summary judgment on statute of limitations defense | Tolling or factual disputes precluded summary judgment | Defendants met burden to show claim time-barred; plaintiff couldn’t show tolling or factual dispute | Court affirmed summary judgment for defendants |
| Burden on party opposing a limitations-based summary judgment motion | Plaintiff: the facts show tolling and recent tortious conduct | Defendants: when limitations shown, plaintiff must identify factual predicate to avoid dismissal | Court applied standard: once defendants showed timeliness problem, plaintiff failed to meet burden to create factual dispute |
Key Cases Cited
- Bellemare v. Wachovia Mortg. Corp., 284 Conn. 193 (2007) (failure to release lien is a single omission, not a continuing wrongful act for tolling purposes)
- Iacurci v. Sax, 313 Conn. 786 (2014) (procedure and burdens in limitations-based summary judgment; plaintiff must show factual predicate to invoke tolling)
- Blake v. Levy, 191 Conn. 257 (1983) (elements of tortious interference)
- PMG Land Associates, L.P. v. Harbour Landing Condominium Assn., Inc., 135 Conn. App. 710 (2012) (prior appellate decision remanding tortious-interference claim for further proceedings)