Page 31 - CLT062821

CONNECTICUT OPINIONS JUNE 28, 2021 ■ 31
A neighbor, who was sued in relation to the General Statutes §52-102b only permits appor-
usage and ownership of a disputed area, was tionment complaints against nonparties. De-
able to stop a fence from being erected that fendant argued the motion to strike should be
would exclude him from using his tool shed. In denied for, if the plaintiff’s direct complaint
2014, the plaintiffs purchased a home next to against REMA were withdrawn or dismissed,
defendant. Prior to both parties moving into defendant would be unable to seek apportion-
their respective homes, the previous owners en- ment at that point. The court agreed that §52-
tered into a written agreement as to a disputed 102b strictly limits the application to nonpar-
area to allow the owners of the property, now ties, however granted the motion to strike with-
owned by defendant, to enter onto the land, out prejudice. The court further noted that no
now owned by plaintiffs, so long as there were juror could find REMA was in exclusive con-
no legal claims made as to the area. In 2019, trol of the situation, and denied the indemnifi-
plaintiff emailed defendant informing him that cation claim.
she wanted to move the fence around the dis-
puted area and block him from using it, but de- REAL ESTATE • CIVIL PROCEDURE
fendant requested that she not do so, as he had
a tool shed on the property and would be un- Res Judicata Bars Interest Claim
able to reach his backyard in a vehicle without
using the disputed area. After both parties filed CASE: Kudia v. Malik
suit, a trial was held, and the court denied both COURT: Stamford/Norwalk J.D. at Stamford
parties’ claims and requested relief, but, using DOC. NO.: CV-20-6046816
its equitable authority, ordered that any fence COURT OPINION BY: Genuario
erected by plaintiffs be positioned to ensure the DATE: June 03, 2021 • PAGES: 5
tool shed remains on defendant’s property. Plaintiff and defendant both had ownership
interest in a property; when the property was
sold, there was a dispute over the proceeds. In
Motion to Strike Third Party a prior ruling, the court decided that plain-
Apportionment Claim Granted tiff was due $110,966.03. Plaintiff brought the
current action alleging that he was owed inter-
CASE: The Woods Roxbury, LLC v. Howland & Assoc., P.C. est, and that defendant had transferred prop-
COURT: Waterbury J.D. erty to delay paying him that interest. The
DOC. NO.: CV-19-6050952 court maintained that plaintiff was entitled to
COURT OPINION BY: Gordon
DATE: June 03, 2021 • PAGES: 14 interest, but he failed to make that request in
Plaintiff, a real estate developer, planned to the prior case and did not obtain a judgment
purchase a portion of property located in the of the court granting the interest. Res judi-
cata was cited as the reason that the claim for
town of Roxbury for the purpose of develop- interest was barred.
ing a residential subdivision. Plaintiff retained
defendants for the purpose of professional en-
gineering and managing the subdivision appli- REAL ESTATE • CONTRACTUAL DISPUTES
cation process. Based on the defendant’s assur-
ances of the future financial success of the de- Court Grants Nominal Damages for
velopment, plaintiff secured a loan for the pur- Conversion and Equitable Damages for
chase of the parcel, however the development
application was ultimately denied by the town’s Fraudulent Conveyance
Wetlands Commission. Plaintiff brought a CASE: Sokolow v. Lesnick
claim in professional malpractice siting several COURT: Danbury J.D. at Danbury
insufficiencies in the application process, and DOC. NO.: CV-19-5015584
defendants filed an apportionment complaint COURT OPINION BY: Kowalski
against defendant REMA Ecological Services, DATE: June 02, 2021 • PAGES: 10
alleging their own professional malpractice in Plaintiff began a relationship with defendant,
their application filings to the Wetlands Com- wherein defendant falsely and fraudulently ma-
missions on behalf of the plaintiff. Plaintiff nipulated plaintiff into using her personal funds
thereafter added defendant REMA to the ini- to purchase a residential property. Defendant rep-
tial complaint, and defendant REMA moved resented to plaintiff that he would use the funds
to strike the apportionment complaint, alleging to purchase the property in plaintiff’s name, and
CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune