327 Conn. 53
Conn.2017Background
- Wellswood owned 188 acres in Columbia accessible only via Wellswood Road in Hebron; Hebron’s officials voted to close and barricade the road in 2005.
- Wellswood sued in state court seeking a temporary and permanent injunction; the trial court denied a permanent injunction in 2008.
- This Court reversed in Wellswood I, holding Hebron exceeded its authority and directed entry of judgment voiding the road-closure resolution.
- After remand and reopening of the road, Wellswood filed a separate action seeking damages for a temporary taking, temporary nuisance, and tortious interference with business expectancies.
- Hebron moved for summary judgment, asserting res judicata (and statute-of-limitations/governmental immunity as alternatives); the trial court granted summary judgment on res judicata grounds.
- This appeal asks whether Wellswood’s damages claims were barred because they arose from the same operative facts litigated in the injunction action.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Accrual of temporary takings claim | Claim didn’t accrue until final judicial resolution (road reopening); extent/nature of damages uncertain | Claim accrued when the regulatory action (road closure) became final; damages were at least partially knowable then | Accrual occurs when the regulatory act becomes final; uncertainty as to full damages doesn’t postpone accrual — res judicata applies |
| Continuing/recurring wrongs / temporary nuisance exception to res judicata | Road closure was an ongoing nuisance so damages could be pursued later under continuing-wrongs exception | Closure was a single wrongful act (like an ordinance); not a continuing unlawful act that creates repeated accruals | Road closure was not a continuing wrong for exception; at most a permanent-type harm that accrued when the road was closed |
| Tortious interference with business expectancies — timing of loss | No definite loss until later; therefore claim could not have been brought earlier | Loss (e.g., loss of access, diminution in value) occurred immediately upon closure and was litigable earlier | Plaintiffs suffered ascertainable loss at closure (loss of access, appraisal evidence) — claim barred by res judicata |
| Application of res judicata policies (judicial economy, repose) | Allowing damages suit now would not undermine judicial economy because damages would have required remand in earlier case anyway | Preclusion promotes finality, avoids duplicative litigation, conserves court and party resources | Policies favor preclusion; damages should have been joined in initial action; summary judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Wellswood Columbia, LLC v. Hebron, 295 Conn. 802 (2010) (this Court’s prior decision holding Hebron exceeded its authority in closing Wellswood Road)
- Cumberland Farms, Inc. v. Groton, 247 Conn. 196 (1998) (temporary takings claim accrues when the regulatory action becomes final)
- Chapman Lumber, Inc. v. Tager, 288 Conn. 69 (2008) (explaining Cumberland Farms and ripeness of takings claims despite uncertainty as to permanency)
- First English Evangelical Lutheran Church v. Los Angeles, 482 U.S. 304 (1987) (governmental action that effects a taking requires compensation for the effective period)
- Creek v. Westhaven, 80 F.3d 186 (7th Cir.) (continuing-wrongs analysis where post-judgment wrongful acts supported later damages action)
- Buck v. Berlin, 163 Conn. App. 282 (2016) (App. Ct. holding takings claim barred by res judicata where prior injunction action challenged same road closure)