Landlord and tenant – Claim preclusion

Listen to this article

Where a defendant claims that a judgment for the plaintiff tenant was improper on res judicata grounds, that argument is unconvincing because the first proceeding involving the parties dealt only with a request for a temporary restraining order.

“In this appeal, appellant The Colonial Inn, LLC (‘Inn’) claims that the trial court erroneously allowed appellee Jacob Smith (‘Smith’) two opportunities to litigate the same claims in the course of the Inn’s efforts to evict Smith from a room he rented at the Inn. Because, as we discuss below, we find that the only issue litigated in the first proceeding between the parties was Smith’s request for a temporary restraining order allowing him access to the room, and not the full spectrum of the parties’ claims and counterclaims against each other, we affirm the trial court’s ruling. …

“… While the evidence presented was not narrowly tailored to the request for a restraining order, there is no indication in the record that the parties agreed that the motion hearing would be converted to a trial on all claims, or that the court entertained more than the motion for the temporary restraining order. To the contrary, Smith’s counsel, in closing, specifically limited Smith’s request for relief to the restraining order: ‘Your Honor, we’re here today essentially just requesting a restraining order that Mr. Smith be allowed back into his — these premises, Your Honor.’ Neither party asked for rulings on anything other than Smith’s request for the order allowing him back into the room. Neither party objected to either the judge’s oral findings limited to that issue, or to the court’s written order to the same effect. The docket reflects the court’s allowance of the motion for a temporary restraining order, but does not include any judgment for possession or damages for any party. The parties ultimately tried their claims against each other on May 1, 2014. On the record before us, the Inn failed to raise any objection to the ongoing litigation or trial until after the conclusion of that trial.

“The sole issue on appeal is whether the ruling made by the motion judge after the February 13, 2014, hearing on the motion for a temporary restraining order barred, by res judicata, further litigation of Smith’s claims against the Inn. We find that it did not do so. …

“… [I]t is clear that there was no final judgment on the merits of either party’s substantive claims against the other. Consequently, claim preclusion does not apply, and Smith’s recovery is not barred by res judicata. …”

Smith v. The Colonial Inn (Lawyers Weekly No. 13-052-15) (6 pages) (Hand, P.J.) (Appellate Division, Southern District) Appealed from a decision by Pomarole, J., in Dedham District Court. Stephen J. Matthews for the plaintiff; Douglas Obey, pro se, for the defendant (App. Div. No. 15-ADMS-40009) (Dec. 16, 2015).

Click here to order the full text of the opinion.