AKK LLC v. Sandra Waldau (2010)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

The plaintiff AKK-6, LLC, the former landlord of the defendant Sandra Waldau, brings this action for money damages for breach of the rental agreement.   The plaintiff alleges that the defendant owes the plaintiff for back rent and for loss of rental income.   The plaintiff claims that the defendant left the apartment before the end of the tenancy and did not pay rent for one or more months, and that she left the apartment in such a way that the plaintiff was required to perform certain restoration work before re-renting it and that the plaintiff could not obtain a new tenant for a number of months thereafter, thus suffering money damages.

The defendant denies the material allegations in the complaint.   The defendant has also filed a special defense alleging that she filed a small claims action against the plaintiff for the plaintiff's breach of the rental agreement, that the matter was heard by the appropriate tribunal, and that a decision was rendered in her favor that included a judgment for the amount of her security deposit, plus interest and costs.   She has filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that the claims of the plaintiff are therefore precluded by the doctrine of res judicata or collateral estoppel.

The court concludes that while the arguments of the defendant may have merit, the record is insufficient for the court to grant her motion.

THE LAW OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT

In deciding a motion for summary judgment, the trial court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.  Appleton v. Board of Education, 254 Conn. 205, 209, 757 A.2d 1059 (2000).   The party seeking summary judgment has the burden of showing the absence of any genuine issue of material fact, such that the moving party is entitled, under principles of substantive law, to a judgment as a matter of law.  Id.

In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the court's function is not to decide the issues of material fact, but rather to determine whether any such issues exist.  Nolan v. Borkowski, 206 Conn. 495, 500, 538 A.2d 1031 (1988).   Summary judgment is appropriate only if a fair and reasonable person could conclude only one way, based on the substantive law and the undisputed material facts.  Miller v. United Technologies Corp., 233 Conn. 732, 751, 660 A.2d 810 (1995).

Summary judgment is an appropriate vehicle for raising a claim of res judicata or collateral estoppel.   See Joe's Pizza.   Inc. v. Aetna Life & Casualty Co., 236 Conn. 863, 867 n.8, 675 A.2d 441 (1996);  Jackson v. R.G. Whipple, Inc., 225 Conn. 705, 712, 627 A.2d 374 (1993);  Zanoni v. Lynch, 79 Conn.App. 325, 338, 830 A.2d 314, cert. denied, 266 Conn. 928, 837 A.2d 803 (2003).

THE FACTS CONCERNING THE PRIOR PROCEEDING

The defendant states that she brought a prior small claims action against Jasko Development LLC, a business alias of AKK-6, as a result of Jasko Development LLC's failure to provide a parking space to her in accordance with the terms of the rental agreement.   She attaches a document in support of her summary judgment motion that purports to be a judgment of the Superior Court, Small Claims Session, entered on March 12, 2010, by Magistrate Judge Nugent, awarding her $1,354.51 from the plaintiff.¹  The notice of judgment indicates that the award of money damages to Waldau was the result of a hearing in damages and that both parties were present for the hearing.   The authenticity of this judgment has not been challenged by the plaintiff.

The defendant argues that the effect of the small claims judgment ordering the return of her security deposit was to establish that all issues regarding breach of the rental agreement had been resolved in the small claims proceeding, or could have been resolved had the landlord so chosen to properly submit them, and that the judgment of the small claims court precludes relitigation of any such issues in the current lawsuit.

The plaintiff argues that a small claims judgment should not have a preclusive effect in a subsequent Superior Court matter.   The plaintiff also argues that the circumstances of the termination of the tenancy were never actually litigated, or could not perhaps have been litigated, in the small claims case.

CLAIM PRECLUSION AND ISSUE PRECLUSION OF SMALL CLAIMS JUDGMENTS

“The doctrine of res judicata holds that an existing final judgment rendered upon the merits without fraud or collusion, by a court of competent jurisdiction, is conclusive of causes of action and of facts or issues thereby litigated as to the parties and their privies in all other actions in the same or any other judicial tribunal of concurrent jurisdiction ․ If the same cause of action is again sued on, the judgment is a bar with respect to any claims relating to the cause of action which were actually made or which might have been made ․” (Citations omitted.)  Powell v. Infinity Ins. Co., 282 Conn. 594, 600, 922 A.2d 1073 (2007).

The Supreme Court has adopted a transactional test as a guide to determining whether a subsequent action involves the same claim as an earlier action so as to trigger operation of the doctrine of res judicata.   In applying the transactional test, a court compares the complaint in the second action with the pleadings and judgment in the earlier action.  Delahunty v. Massachusetts Mutual Life Ins. Co., 236 Conn. 582, 590, 674 A.2d 1290 (1996).

“[C]ollateral estoppel, or issue preclusion ․ prohibits the relitigation of an issue when that issue was actually litigated and necessarily determined in a prior action between the same parties or those in privity with them upon a different claim ․” (Citations omitted.)  Powell v. Infinity Insurance Co., supra, 282 Conn. 600.  “An issue is actually litigated if it is properly raised in the pleadings or otherwise, submitted for determination, and in fact determined ․ An issue is necessarily determined if, in the absence of a determination of the issue, the judgment could not have been validly rendered ․ If an issue has been determined, but the judgment is not dependent upon the determination of the issue, the parties may relitigate the issue in a subsequent action.”  (Citations omitted.)  Delahunty v. Massachusetts Mutual Life Ins. Co., supra, 236 Conn. 600.

Contrary to the plaintiff's argument, appellate courts in Connecticut have consistently held that these doctrines can apply in situations where the prior judgment is one arising out of the Superior Court, Small Claims session.   See Orselet v. DeMatteo, 206 Conn. 542, 539 A.2d 95 (1988) (res judicata applied where small claims action for rental expenses incurred as a result of accident was based on same primary facts as subsequent Superior Court action for damages to automobile from accident);  Dontigney v. Roberts, 73 Conn.App. 709, 809 A.2d 539 (2002), cert. denied, 262 Conn. 944, 815 A.2d 675 (2003) (res judicata applied where small claims action alleging breach of contract, among other claims, arose from same transaction as subsequent Superior Court case);  Rodriguez v. Saucier, 108 Conn.App. 599, 948 A.2d 1067, cert. denied, 289 Conn. 917, 957 A.2d 879 (2008) (collateral estoppel applied in Superior Court action for personal injuries where party claiming injuries counterclaimed for personal injuries in small claims matter and was found at fault for underlying accident in small claims matter).   But see Isaac v. Truck Service, Inc., 253 Conn. 416, 752 A.2d 509 (2000) (res judicata not applied where prior small claims action brought for property damage to vehicle and subsequent Superior Court action brought to recover for personal injuries).

Nonetheless, issues of material fact preclude entry of summary judgment in the present matter.  “[W]hether res judicata is a defense depends on the facts peculiar to the case.”  Orselet v. DeMatteo, supra, at 548.   In particular, the failure of either party here to submit copies of the small claims complaint and any other pleadings submitted in the small claims action precludes this court from analyzing whether the doctrine of res judicata has been triggered.   Moreover, the record is rife with conflicting averments by the parties, unsupported by admissible evidentiary submissions, as to the issues that were raised, heard and determined in the small claims action.

Because there are disputed issues of material fact concerning the issues that were actually raised or that could have been raised or that either party sought to raise in the small claims action, this court is prevented from determining whether res judicata or collateral estoppel apply as a matter of law to compel judgment for the defendant.

CONCLUSION

The defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is denied.

Patty Jenkins Pittman, Judge

FOOTNOTES

FN1. According to the Notice of Judgment attached to the defendant's motion for summary judgment, the small claims judgment was comprised of a security deposit in the amount of $1,300, statutory interest in the amount of $19.51 and costs in the amount of $35..  FN1. According to the Notice of Judgment attached to the defendant's motion for summary judgment, the small claims judgment was comprised of a security deposit in the amount of $1,300, statutory interest in the amount of $19.51 and costs in the amount of $35.

Pittman, Patty Jenkins, J.