Tarro v. Mastriani Realty, LLC
142 Conn. App. 419
Conn. App. Ct.2013Background
- Tarro is the sole member of Victorian Elegance, LLC, which operated at the Windsor subject premises; Mastriani Realty, LLC owns the premises; Victorian Elegance sublet from Prudential Realty; eviction proceedings (summary process) were litigated resulting in a stipulation granting Mastriani possession on Oct 1, 2010 with a stay conditional on a $2000 payment; Victorian Elegance failed to vacate and to pay, leading to a nonresidential eviction execution on Oct 1, 2010 and a further stay until Nov 1, 2010; Tarro and Victorian Elegance sought to recover or replevy possessions after eviction and filed two actions on Jan 27, 2011 (replevin AC 33922 and civil action AC 33921)); defendants argued the two actions were barred by res judicata and collateral estoppel from the prior eviction action and postjudgment housing court orders; the housing court’s execution and 47a-42a provisions governed disposition of remaining property; the trial court granted summary judgments to the defendants, which the plaintiffs appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether res judicata applies to bar the replevin action. | Tarro argues claims differ and were not litigated before housing court. | Mastriani asserts the eviction judgment and 47a-42a govern and bar later actions. | Yes, barred by res judicata. |
| Whether collateral estoppel bars relitigation of issues decided in eviction. | Tarro contends issues were not identical to those litigated previously. | Mastriani asserts prior adjudication controls the later actions. | Yes, barred by collateral estoppel. |
| Whether housing court jurisdiction could not adjudicate matters in replevin/civil actions. | Tarro claims housing court lacked authority for property disputes. | Mastriani contends housing court could address property under eviction framework. | No; housing court had authority to resolve related property issues. |
| Whether the eviction execution was properly returned and effects of 47a-42a were satisfied. | Tarro argues execution lapse voids later actions. | Mastriani asserts valid execution and post-stay disposition under 47a-42a. | No merit to void execution; proper service and stay mechanics observed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Savage v. Aronson, 214 Conn. 256 (1990) (housing court power and jurisdiction general Superior Court authority over housing matters)
- 73-75 Main Ave., LLC v. PP Door Ent., Inc., 120 Conn. App. 150 (2010) (housing court can transfer actions; no deprivation of jurisdiction for housing matters)
- Bruno v. Geller, 136 Conn. App. 707 (2012) (scope of claim preclusion; balancing preclusion policies)
- Powell v. Infinity Ins. Co., 282 Conn. 594 (2007) (exception to preclusion doctrines; factors for consideration)
- Coyle Crete, LLC v. Nevins, 137 Conn. App. 540 (2012) (preclusion doctrines; burden on party asserting applicability)