Albahary v. City of Bristol
Decision Date | 20 December 2005 |
Docket Number | No. 17265, 17266.,17265, 17266. |
Citation | 886 A.2d 802,276 Conn. 426 |
Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
Parties | Mary L. ALBAHARY et al. v. CITY OF BRISTOL |
Michael A. Zizka, Hartford, for the appellants in Docket No. SC 17265, appellees in Docket No. SC 17266 (plaintiffs).
Ben M. Krowicki, with whom were Susan Kim, Hartford, and Brian R. Hole, for the appellee in Docket No. SC 17265, appellant in Docket No. SC 17266 (defendant).
SULLIVAN, C.J., and KATZ, PALMER, VERTEFEUILLE and ZARELLA, Js.
These certified appeals arise out of an action brought by the plaintiffs,1 the owners of a certain property located in the town of Southington, against the defendant, the city of Bristol, challenging the statement of compensation filed by the defendant in connection with its taking by condemnation of certain interests in the plaintiffs' property. Before they brought this action, the plaintiffs had brought an action against the defendant in the United Stated District Court for the District of Connecticut (federal court) raising numerous statutory claims, common-law claims and a claim of inverse condemnation, all pertaining to the defendant's maintenance of a landfill abutting their property which, the plaintiffs alleged, had contaminated the groundwater under their property. The federal court found for the plaintiffs on most of their statutory and common-law claims but denied the plaintiffs' inverse condemnation claim. Subsequently, the trial court in the present case rejected the plaintiffs' claim that the valuation of the property interests taken by the defendant should be measured by comparing the value of the land in its uncontaminated state to the value of the land in its contaminated state on the ground that the federal court previously had decided that issue in favor of the defendant. The plaintiffs appealed to the Appellate Court, which concluded that although the plaintiffs had a right, in principle, to be compensated in this condemnation proceeding for the pretaking contamination of their property, the trial court properly had concluded that, under the circumstances of this case, the plaintiffs were barred by principles of collateral estoppel from making such a claim. Albahary v. Bristol, 84 Conn.App. 329, 337-41, 853 A.2d 577 (2004). We subsequently granted the defendant's petition for certification to appeal limited to the following issue: "Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that in the measurement of the plaintiffs' just compensation, the plaintiffs had a right to be compensated for the totality of the damage caused to their property by the defendant's contamination of the plaintiffs' groundwater?" Albahary v. Bristol, 271 Conn. 924, 859 A.2d 576 (2004). We also granted the plaintiffs' petition for certification to appeal limited to the following issue: "Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that the doctrine of collateral estoppel, or issue preclusion, precluded the plaintiffs from obtaining compensation from the defendant for damages arising out of the defendant's pretaking contamination of the plaintiffs' groundwater?" Albahary v. Bristol, 271 Conn. 925, 859 A.2d 576 (2004). We affirm the judgment of the Appellate Court.
The opinion of the Appellate Court sets forth the following facts and procedural history. "The plaintiffs are joint owners of 87.6 acres of unimproved property in Southington. The property, which is almost entirely in a residential zone, is taxed as open space land. Its northerly part, which abuts [a landfill operated by the defendant], consists of approximately forty-six acres that, since 1992, have been used for the mining of good quality sand and gravel. Its southerly part, approximately forty-two acres, consists of unimproved land.
3 Albahary v. Bristol, supra, 84 Conn.App. at 332-34, 853 A.2d 577.
4 Id., at 337-38, 853 A.2d 577.
In the present case, the trial court determined that the damages suffered by the plaintiffs from the condemnation of their property were to be measured by comparing the value of their property at the time of the taking, in its polluted condition, with its value after the condemnation. The trial court stated, in support of its conclusion, that
The plaintiffs appealed to the Appellate Court claiming, inter alia, that the trial court "improperly [had] confined its analysis of the damages they had suffered to a comparison between the value of their property in its polluted condition and its value after the taking of the easement." Albahary v. Bristol, supra, 84 Conn.App. at 334, 853 A.2d 577. The Appellate Court rejected the defendant's argument that the valuation in the present case was governed by this court's holding in Northeast Ct. Economic Alliance, Inc. v. ATC Partnership, 256 Conn. 813, 832-34, 776 A.2d 1068 (2001) (ATC), that the market value of a condemned property must be determined on the basis of the condition of the property on the date of the taking. Albahary v. Bristol, supra, at 336, 853 A.2d 577. The Appellate Court reasoned that "[e]xtension of the valuation...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
New England Estates v. Town of Branford, No. 18132.
...(Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., at 284, 370 A.2d 920. We relied on this line of cases to conclude, in Albahary v. Bristol, 276 Conn. 426, 436, 442, 886 A.2d 802 (2005), that a claim for inverse condemnation arising out of pretaking property damage caused by a condemnor may be raise......
-
Birnie v. Electric Boat Corp.
...— is not only a question of law, but also one of first impression,9 over which our review is plenary. See, e.g., Albahary v. Bristol, 276 Conn. 426, 444, 886 A.2d 802 (2005) (whether doctrine of collateral estoppel applied is question of law subject to plenary Before reaching the merits of ......
- State v. Patterson
-
Lighthouse Landings Inc. v. Conn. Light
...of the doctrine of collateral estoppel is a question of law over which we exercise plenary review. E.g., Albahary v. Bristol, 276 Conn. 426, 444, 886 A.2d 802 (2005). In Lighthouse Landings, this court held that (1) “the trial court improperly reinstated the lease under the doctrine of equi......
-
2005 Survey of Developments in Civil Litigation
...charge. 35 273 Conn. 724, 872 A.2d 898 (2005). 36 88 Conn. App. 818, 871 A.2d 1071, cert. granted, 274 Conn. 915, 879 A.2d 895 (2005). 37 276 Conn. 426, 886 A.2d 802 (2005). 38 88 Conn. App. 583, 870 A.2d 1131 (2005), overruled by 277 Conn. 364, 890 A.2d 1287 (2006). 39 275 Conn. 72, 881 A.......
-
A Picture Is Worth a Thousand Words: A Look at Ohio's Take on Involuntary Takings
...troublesome to the 137 Id. 138 State ex rel. Blank v. Beasley, 903 N.E.2d 1196, 1202 (Ohio 2007) (quoting Albahary v. Bristol, 886 A.2d 802, 809 (Conn. 2005)). 139 Id. (quoting Albahary, 886 A.2d at 811). 140 Id. (quoting Gans, supra note 41, at 681). 141 Id. at 1202–03 (quoting Gans, supra......
-
2006 Connecticut Real Property Law Developments
...Hovanec, a fourth-year evening student at the University of Connecticut School of Law, for her assistance in research and editing. 1. 276 Conn. 426 (2006). 2. 277 Conn. 696 (2006). 3. Id.at708-13. 4. 277 Conn. 800 (2006). 5. Id.at813. 6. Id. at 825. 7. 94 Conn. App. 203 (2006). 8. 92 Conn. ......