DocketNumber: No. CV93 0132045 S
Citation Numbers: 1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 2768
Judges: MINTZ, J.
Filed Date: 3/4/1998
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/17/2021
"Because res judicata or collateral estoppel, if raised, may be dispositive of a claim, summary judgment [is] the appropriate method for resolving a claim of res judicata." Jackson v. R.G.Whipple, Inc.,
"[I]ssue preclusion [collateral estoppel], prevents a party from relitigating an issue that has been determined in a prior suit." Mazziotti v. Allstate Ins. Company,
The plaintiff responds, however, that it is "all but impossible to ascertain which issues were in fact considered and determined by the court" when the judgments were entered on August 4, 1989 because there was no substantive presentation or consideration of the factual issues concerning the value of the subject properties: 300 Atlantic Street or 4 and 6 Stamford Forum. The plaintiff argues, therefore, that collateral estoppel does not bar appeal of the assessments of the subject properties because the relevant issues have not yet been litigated.
"`For an issue to be subject to collateral estoppel, it must have been fully and fairly litigated in the first action. It must also have been actually decided and the decision must have been necessary to the judgment.'" Town of Monroe v. Renz,
The court agrees with the plaintiff that the issue of value was not fully and fairly litigated in 1989 when the parties settled the appeal regarding the value of 300 Atlantic Street. The evidence submitted by the parties indicates that the court held a hearing on August 4, 1989 with respect to the value of 300 Atlantic Street. However, an issue arose as to whether the building was complete in 1988. The parties agreed to insert the term `substantially' before the word `complete' as it appears in the stipulation regarding the property located at 300 Atlantic Street. Instead, however, the parties inserted the word `substantially' before the word `complete' on page two of the CT Page 2771 stipulation regarding the Stamford Forum property.
Further, the affidavit of Peter Sebastian, the Commercial Appraiser in the Assessor's office of Stamford indicates that the parties agreed that the square foot value for the subsequent future tenant improvements was $18.67. At the hearing concerning 300 Atlantic Street, the existence of the alleged agreement was brought to the court's attention, but the substance of that agreement was never discussed before the court. As such, the judgment files are silent regarding the assessment and valuation of subsequent improvements.
The stipulated judgment does not contain sufficient information from which the agreed-upon fair market value can be ascertained. No evidence exists to indicate that a hearing was conducted concerning the assessment of the value of the Stamford Forum property. It is therefore impossible to determine whether the buildings on that property were complete when the parties stipulated to their value.
Recalling that summary judgment "is appropriate only if a fair and reasonable person could conclude only one way." Millerv. United Technologies Corp. ,
Mintz, J.