Pollansky v. Pollansky
162 Conn.App. 635
Conn. App. Ct.2016Background
- Steven Pollansky (plaintiff) lived and worked for decades on three Coventry parcels jointly owned by his parents; he contends Andrew promised to convey the land to him in exchange for services.
- After Andrew died, Anna Pollansky sought possession; she obtained judgment in a summary process (eviction) action and this court affirmed that judgment.
- Pollansky later sued Anna and two sisters (Chimbole and Richard) for breach of contract (oral promise), unjust enrichment, quantum meruit, and adverse possession (Coventry and Mansfield properties).
- Defendants moved for summary judgment asserting res judicata and collateral estoppel based on the prior summary process trial; the trial court granted the motion in full.
- On appeal, the court considered whether the prior summary process proceeding precluded (1) the contract claim (res judicata) and (2) the noncontractual/damages claims and adverse possession (collateral estoppel).
- Court reversed as to unjust enrichment and quantum meruit for Coventry (remanded); affirmed dismissal of breach of contract and adverse possession claims and affirmance on other issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether res judicata bars breach of contract claim to Coventry title | Pollansky: prior summary process did not decide ownership/title; therefore res judicata doesn't apply | Defs: Plaintiff litigated and lost the ownership promise in the summary process; final judgment bars reassertion | Breach claim against Anna barred by res judicata; against sisters barred by collateral estoppel (preclusive effect upheld) |
| Whether collateral estoppel bars adverse possession claim | Pollansky: adverse possession not litigated previously; summary process limited to possession | Defs: Permission/possession and related facts were litigated; plaintiff conceded permissive occupation, so hostility element fails | Collateral estoppel (and res judicata vs Anna) bars adverse possession; plaintiff precluded because prior judgment resolved permissive occupation |
| Whether unjust enrichment and quantum meruit are precluded by prior summary process | Pollansky: money damages unavailable/ not litigable in summary process; court explicitly declined to award damages | Defs: Plaintiff presented services/improvement evidence and court found facts against him, so claims precluded | Not precluded: summary process is limited (possession only), counterclaims for money damages are not permitted there; unjust enrichment and quantum meruit claims for Coventry reversed and remanded |
| Whether new parties (sisters) can invoke preclusion | Pollansky: sisters were not parties to prior summary process so preclusion shouldn't apply | Defs: Preclusive effect applies where issues were actually litigated; mutuality not required | Mutuality not required for collateral estoppel; sisters precluded on breach claim by collateral estoppel (court rejected Bruno mutuality exception as inapplicable but allowed nonmutual preclusion) |
Key Cases Cited
- Bruno v. Geller, 136 Conn. App. 707 (Conn. App. 2012) (discusses preclusion and mutuality exceptions)
- New England Estates, LLC v. Branford, 294 Conn. 817 (Conn. 2010) (explains claim preclusion/res judicata principles)
- Rocco v. Garrison, 268 Conn. 541 (Conn. 2004) (distinguishes claim preclusion and issue preclusion)
- Carnese v. Middleton, 27 Conn. App. 530 (Conn. App. 1992) (summary process does not bar later damages claims)
- Vertex, Inc. v. Waterbury, 278 Conn. 557 (Conn. 2006) (elements of unjust enrichment)
- Gagne v. Vaccaro, 255 Conn. 390 (Conn. 2001) (quantum meruit and unjust enrichment explained)