Pierucci v. Pierucci

• Decision Date: 10 July 2014
• Docket Number: No. 20130379–CA.,20130379–CA.
• Citation: 764 Utah Adv. Rep. 51,331 P.3d 7
• Court: Utah Court of Appeals
• Parties: Armando PIERUCCI, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. Marcheta PIERUCCI Defendant, Appellee.

331 P.3d 7

764 Utah Adv. Rep. 51

Armando PIERUCCI, Plaintiff, Appellant,

v.Marcheta PIERUCCI Defendant, Appellee.

No. 20130379–CA.

Court of Appeals of Utah.

July 10, 2014.

Justin D. Heideman, for Appellant and Cross-appellee.

Don M. Torgerson and Mandie J. Torgerson, for Appellee and Cross-appellant.

Judge STEPHEN L. ROTH authored this Opinion, in which Judges GREGORY K. ORME and J. FREDERIC VOROS JR. concurred.

Opinion

ROTH, Judge:

¶ 1 The district court dismissed Armando Pierucci's complaint, concluding that his claims were barred by res judicata and the statute of limitations and that he had not demonstrated that he had standing as a real party in interest to assert them. Armando appeals the dismissal, and we affirm on the ground that he has not demonstrated that he is a real party in interest. Our decision to affirm, however, does not preclude Armando from seeking any remedy suggested by rule 17 of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure to reinstate the proceedings.

BACKGROUND

¶ 2 In 1949, two brothers, Anselmo Pierucci and Victor Pierucci, each inherited an undivided one-half interest in the mineral rights to property in Carbon County.¹ When Anselmo died in 1984, he left a will transferring his one-half interest to Armando, who was one of Victor's sons. A 1988 quitclaim deed recorded in Carbon County indicates that Victor transferred his one-half interest to his daughter-in-law, Marcheta Pierucci.² After Victor died, Marcheta claimed an undivided one-half interest in the mineral rights.

¶ 3 Armando originally sued Marcheta in 2010, alleging breach of contract and other equitable claims based on the 1988 quitclaim deed transferring Victor's mineral rights interest to Marcheta. In that case, Armando sought to invalidate that deed and have title to the mineral interest devolve to him. Near the end of the discovery period, Armando engaged a handwriting expert, who concluded that the deed was “probably not” executed by Victor. Based on the expert's report, Armando moved to amend the complaint to add a claim of fraud. The district court denied his motion on the basis that “the new claim is significantly different from those claims previously pleaded.” The court disposed of Armando's other causes of action by motion. Armando did not appeal from any of the rulings in the 2010 litigation, including the denial of the motion to amend.

¶ 4 In May 2012, Armando filed a new complaint against Marcheta, initiating the present case. This time he sought a declaratory judgment invalidating the deed due to fraud based on forgery. In the complaint, Armando alleged that Victor died intestate; that Victor's other immediate family members, including Victor's wife and his son, John, were also deceased; and that Armando, as Victor's son, was Victor's heir. Armando asserted that although there is a 1988 deed transferring Victor's one-half interest in the mineral rights to Marcheta, Armando had reason to believe that the deed was a forgery. He further asserted that he “did not know that the Deed had been forged until he obtained the [handwriting] expert analysis” in August 2011. Marcheta responded to the complaint with a rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. Utah R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (allowing the defendant to move for dismissal on the basis that the plaintiff has “fail[ed] to state a claim upon which relief can be granted”). She asserted three bases for dismissal. First, she contended that Armando lacked standing to invalidate the deed or assert fraud because he was not a real party in interest. Second, she argued that Armando's claims were barred by the doctrine of res judicata because they arose from the same operative facts as the contract and equitable claims he asserted in the 2010 complaint. Finally, Marcheta argued that the claims were barred by the seven-year statute of limitations because Victor transferred the mineral rights to Marcheta in 1988, twenty-four years earlier, and the 1988 recording of the deed put Victor on constructive notice of the conveyance so as to preclude any tolling of the statute of limitations period. The district court agreed that each of the three grounds precluded Armando's claim and dismissed the complaint.

ISSUES AND STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶ 5 Armando challenges the three bases for the district court's decision to dismiss his 2012 complaint. He asserts that his claim was not barred by res judicata because, as the district court recognized in the first case, “the forgery claim ... differed significantly” from his contract and equitable claims. Armando also claims that the discovery rule tolled the statute of limitations on his fraud claim until he discovered or reasonably should have discovered the facts that he alleges constitute fraud. Finally, he contends that he is a legal heir of Victor and thus was a real party in interest with standing to bring a claim regarding Victor's property.

¶ 6 “The propriety of a trial court's decision to grant ... a motion to dismiss under rule 12(b)(6) is a question of law that we review for correctness.” Mackey v. Cannon, 2000 UT App 36, ¶ 9, 996 P.2d 1081 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). When reviewing the grant of such a motion, “we accept the factual allegations in the complaint as true and interpret those facts and all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom in a light most favorable to the plaintiff as the nonmoving party.” ³Russell Packard Dev., Inc. v. Carson, 2005 UT 14, ¶ 3, 108 P.3d 741. All the subsidiary issues likewise involve questions of law. See Gillmor v. Family Link, LLC, 2012 UT 38, ¶ 9, 284 P.3d 622 (“Whether a claim is barred by res judicata is a question of law that we review for correctness.”); Colosimo v. Roman Catholic Bishop of Salt Lake City, 2007 UT 25, ¶ 11, 156 P.3d 806 (“The applicability of a statute of limitations and ... the discovery rule are questions of law, which we review for correctness.” (omission in original) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Anderson v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 841 P.2d 742, 744–45 (Utah Ct.App.1992) (reviewing for correctness the propriety of the district court's dismissal on the basis that the beneficiary was not a real party in interest).

ANALYSIS

I. Res Judicata

¶ 7 The district court dismissed Armando's claim on the basis that it was barred by the claim preclusion branch of res judicata. “[C]laim preclusion corresponds to causes of action and bars a party from prosecuting in a subsequent action a claim that has been fully litigated previously.” State v. Sommerville, 2013 UT App 40, ¶ 30, 297 P.3d 665 (alteration in original) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). A claim is precluded if “the parties or their privies” have been involved in previous litigation, “the claim that is alleged to be barred [was] presented in the first suit or ... could and should have been raised in the first action,” and “the first suit ... resulted in a final judgment on the merits.” Gillmor, 2012 UT 38, ¶ 10, 284 P.3d 622 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). “The second prong is often the most contested element,” id., and that is the case here, as Armando readily concedes that both cases involved the same parties and that the first action was resolved on the merits. Armando disputes, however, that his forgery claim could have or should have been raised in the 2010 complaint. First, he argues, the claim arises from a different set of facts and evidence of a different character than the breach of contract and equitable claims he asserted in the first suit. Second, Armando contends that he could not have brought the claim in the first action because the district court expressly prohibited him from doing so by denying his motion to amend on the basis that “the new claim is significantly different from those claims previously pleaded.”

¶ 8 In Gillmor v. Family Link, LLC, 2012 UT 38, 284 P.3d 622, our supreme court adopted the transactional test for determining if a claim is precluded. Id. ¶¶ 12–13. “Under the transactional test, ‘[c]laims or causes of action are the same as those brought or that could have been brought in the first action if they arise from the same operative facts, or in other words from the same transaction.’ ” Id. ¶ 14 (alteration in original) (citation omitted). Thus, in considering whether claim preclusion applies, a court should assess (1) whether the claims possess a “common nucleus of operative facts,” (2) “whether the facts are related in time, space, origin, or motivation” so as to (3) make “a convenient trial unit” because they depend on evidence of a similar kind or character and (4) “whether their treatment as a unit conforms to the parties' expectations.” Id. (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).

¶ 9 Applying these factors, the Gillmor court concluded that Gillmor's causes of action aimed at establishing a public right of way (the second suit) were not precluded by her earlier lawsuit that asserted a private easement right over the same property (the first suit). Id. ¶¶ 17–22. In particular, the court noted that Gillmor's second suit involved facts relating to the usage of the road by members of the public dating back to the 1800s, whereas the first suit only concerned the Gillmors' own use since they acquired the property forty years before. Id. ¶¶ 17–18. Thus, the causes of action did not arise out of a common nucleus of operative facts. Id. ¶ 22. The supreme court also observed that the claims for relief in the second suit focused on public rights and public use, rather than private rights and private use, making them “legally [as well as] factually distinct from the claims advanced” in the first suit. Id. ¶ 19. Therefore, the prior private easement claim and the current highway-by-public use and public condemnation claims would not make a convenient trial unit because they did not involve a “significant overlap between the evidence necessary to establish the claims.” Id. ¶¶ 19, 22. Finally, the court explained that...