187 Conn. App. 132
Conn. App. Ct.2019Background
- Villages, LLC applied in 2009 for a special use permit and open-space subdivision approval from the Enfield Planning & Zoning Commission; the commission denied both applications after multiple public hearings.
- The trial court in the ensuing zoning appeals found that commissioner Lori Longhi engaged in ex parte communications, dominated the October 15, 2009 deliberations, and was clearly biased against the plaintiff’s representative; the court sustained the appeals and remanded for new hearings; higher courts affirmed that result.
- Villages then sued Longhi individually (October 2012) for fraudulent misrepresentation (alleging she misrepresented she was neutral) and intentional tortious interference with a business expectancy (alleging interference with the plaintiff’s expectation of a fair forum).
- Longhi moved for summary judgment and asserted, among other defenses, lack of privity/ collateral estoppel and failure to prove essential elements of the tort claims; Villages moved for partial summary judgment arguing Longhi was collaterally estopped from denying bias because of the earlier zoning appeal rulings.
- On remand the trial court denied Villages’ partial summary judgment and granted Longhi’s motion for summary judgment; Villages appealed and the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Longhi is collaterally estopped from disputing liability (bias/ex parte) | Prior zoning-appeal findings bind Longhi; she had opportunity to defend so issue preclusion should apply | Longhi was not a party to the zoning appeals and was not in privity with the commission; she lacked the same legal rights and was not bound | Not estopped: no privity and no full, party-based opportunity to litigate; collateral estoppel does not bind Longhi |
| Whether Villages proved fraudulent misrepresentation by Longhi | Longhi’s participation while biased was a false representation of neutrality that induced Villages to proceed and spend money | Even if biased participation were a false representation, Villages offered no evidence that Longhi intended to induce or actually induced Villages’ reliance | Summary judgment for Longhi: plaintiff failed to show inducement/reliance element of fraud |
| Whether Villages proved tortious interference with a business expectancy | Villages had a business relationship/expectation with the commission as an honest forum and Longhi interfered | No legal or factual basis that an applicant and a zoning commission form a business relationship; no contract or reasonable probability of profit shown | Summary judgment for Longhi: no business relationship or reasonable probability of contract/profit; claim fails |
| Whether summary judgment standard was satisfied | Villages: genuine issues of material fact exist from prior findings of bias and ex parte contact | Longhi: she met burden to show absence of essential elements for both torts | Court: viewed evidence in favor of Villages but found insufficient proof of essential elements; judgment for Longhi affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- MacDermid, Inc. v. Leonetti, 328 Conn. 726 (Conn. 2018) (elements and prerequisites for collateral estoppel/issue preclusion)
- Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Jones, 220 Conn. 285 (Conn. 1991) (privity requires shared legal right; full and fair opportunity to litigate)
- Mazziotti v. Allstate Ins. Co., 240 Conn. 799 (Conn. 1997) (common interest in facts insufficient for privity; legal rights must align)
- Hi-Ho Tower, Inc. v. Com-Tronics, Inc., 255 Conn. 20 (Conn. 2000) (elements of tortious interference with business expectancies)
- Kelley Property Dev., Inc. v. Lebanon, 226 Conn. 314 (Conn. 1993) (discusses available remedies after zoning denials; dicta noting tortious-interference theory as a possible avenue)
- Lighthouse Landings, Inc. v. Connecticut Light & Power Co., 300 Conn. 325 (Conn. 2011) (standard of review for collateral estoppel)