Thornton v. Little Sisters of the Poor

• Decision Date: 06 December 1977
• Docket Number: No. 11008.,11008.
• Citation: 380 A.2d 593
• Parties: James R. THORNTON, Administrator d. b. n., c. t. a. of the Estate of Joseph Foller, late of Baltimore City, Deceased, et al., Appellants, v. The LITTLE SISTERS OF THE POOR, a District of Columbia charitable corporation, et al., Appellees.
• Court: D.C. Court of Appeals

380 A.2d 593

James R. THORNTON, Administrator d. b. n., c. t. a. of the Estate of Joseph Foller, late of Baltimore City, Deceased, et al., Appellants, v. The LITTLE SISTERS OF THE POOR, a District of Columbia charitable corporation, et al., Appellees.

No. 11008.

District of Columbia Court of Appeals.

Argued February 15, 1977.

Decided December 6, 1977.

Samuel A. Culotta, Baltimore, Md., of the bar of the State of Maryland, pro hac vice, by special leave of the court, with whom Frank W. Marsalek, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellants.

David J. Hensler, Washington, D. C., with whom Suzanne Donnelly Kitchings, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellee Little Sisters of the Poor, and Ross O'Donoghue, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellees St. Joseph's Home and School and Associated Catholic Charities.

Alan R. Swendiman, Washington, D. C., with whom Benjamin W. Dulany, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellee Lawyers Title Insurance Corporation.

Before KELLY, NEBEKER and MACK, Associate Judges.

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from the dismissal by the Superior Court of a civil action instituted by the Administrators and Trustees of the estate of Joseph Foller, deceased, and Katherine Rohleder, deceased, against the Little Sisters of the Poor, St. Joseph's Home and School, and Lawyers Title Insurance Company.

The case arose out of the condemnation of a parcel of land instituted in June of 1971 when the District of Columbia Redevelopment Land Agency (the Agency) filed a Complaint in Condemnation and Declaration of Taking with the United States District Court. To ascertain the property's ownership, the Agency in May of 1969 contracted to obtain a title report on the property from Lawyers Title Insurance Company. The title report, completed in January 1971, disclosed that the Little Sisters and St. Joseph's each held a one-quarter interest in the property to be condemned, and that the remaining one-half interest was vested in the heirs and devisees of Joseph Foller and Katherine Rohleder. This report was mailed to the Agency on January 10, 1973.

Since the identity and addresses of the various heirs and devisees could not be ascertained from the Land Records, the Agency gave notice by publication as provided by Rule 71A(d)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In addition, the Agency made an independent investigation in an attempt to locate persons with an interest in the property. Although as a result of this investigation some of the interested parties also received actual notice of the proceedings, none of them filed an answer to the Declaration of Taking. At the just compensation hearing on January 26, 1973, the United States District Court ordered payment of $10,462.50 each to the Little Sisters and St. Joseph's based on the one-quarter interest each was shown to have by the title report. On February 7, 1973, Lawyers Title received the checks from the clerk of court, and subsequently turned them over to the two charities. In May and again in September of 1975, the Administrators and Trustees filed motions to set aside the distribution orders. Both motions were denied, and the denials upheld by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Alleging that the Little Sisters and St. Joseph's had no interest in the property condemned, the Administrators and Trustees then sued in Superior Court to recover from them the amount received from the condemnation award, and sued Lawyers Title for negligence in its examination of the title. The Superior Court dismissed the claims against the Little Sisters and St. Joseph's as barred by the doctrine of res judicata, and because the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The court dismissed the claim against Lawyer's Title on the ground that it was barred by the applicable Statute of Limitations.

I.

It is settled that res judicata is a complete bar to subsequent actions between parties involving the same claim or demand, and prevents the consideration not only of those issues which were litigated but also those which might have been litigated in the first action. Taylor v. England, D.C. App., 213 A.2d 821 (1965).¹ The doctrine of res judicata is equally applicable to condemnation proceedings. Annat v. Beard, 277 F.2d 554 (5th Cir. 1960); Bullen v. De Bretteville, 239 F.2d 824 (9th Cir. 1957). Yet here the principal issue which the Administrators and Trustees sought to litigate in Superior Court, that is, the right of the Little Sisters and St. Joseph's to one-quarter interests in the condemnation award, was the very issue decided by the district court in District of Columbia Redevelopment Land Agency v. Seven Parcels of Land, No. 1278-71 (D.C.D.C., July 15, 1975), aff'd, 176 U.S.App.D.C. 240, 539 F.2d 242 (1976), involving the same property.

The Administrators and Trustees seek to avoid the operation of the doctrine by claiming that res judicata may not apply because their notice was defective. This contention is without merit. In determining this point the district court judge stated in his memorandum and order denying the motion for relief from the judgment that

It appears that prior to the just compensation proceeding full and adequate notice to all "unknown owners" was given by publication, F.R.Civ.P. 71A(d)(3)(ii). There was also actual notice to many of the Foller and Rohleder heirs. None responded. Assuming, without deciding, that the administrators of these long-dormant estates have standing — which is highly questionable since under the law of Maryland prior to 1969 realty generally appears not to have been part of the estate subject to probate, . . . the motion must nevertheless fail. No basis exists for reopening a final judgment where movants had ample notice, slept on their rights for more than a year and failed to present any evidence of extrinsic fraud. (Emphasis added.)

Furthermore, these considerations were upheld on appeal.

There must at some time come an end to litigation, not only for the sake of the adverse party who should not be vexed again with...