granted the defendant city of grafton's motion to dismiss the plaintiff's amended complaint with prejudice the complaint is one that saw damages for alleged improper destruction of a motel hotel therefore damages to real and personal property both under intentional count and negligent count as well as a claim for conversion and the demolition proceed case therefore is related to a case that was in jersey county thirteen m r thirty three in that case there was a trial before the presiding judge in jersey county judge pistorius there was an appeal a decision in favor of the city of grafton in that case the defendant in that case was married realty a corporation an appeal the hotel owned the property the case was moved justice turner dissipated in that order not the most significant factor here is this hotel hours of appeal because the record below in that thirteen m r thirty three is very confusing so i don't disagree with this court's order to dismiss when something's moved but by doing that however between the time of that appellate court order and from the time that the case was resolved on november nineteenth two thousand and thirteen a trial was held in jersey nothing changed while so what while the significant factor is charles by now was there he had received the deed the day before doesn't own the property this case is moot because as it had justice appleton noted there's there's a long string of case the same and i have an interest we're not going to issue a decision a marriage will he didn't have an interest as you know but you have behind that by doing that what this court set is because nothing changed from the ever nineteen to the time just put dismissed in fifteen nothing changed you had to go behind his words are you that well no actually he didn't he didn't and i don't mean to correct your honor but i think but what he told him is you appeared without you appeared on behalf of the cooperation if you would have filed a sub through sion maybe i would have done something different the pointed they gave you have well  so the case went to trial with plaintiffs in your graft and the defendant really comes why because judge her story said it's a sham and i'm not trying to argue the incorrect decision that case accountable for what's already been filed related to the problems caused by now was there he wanted to participate the judge said not for moved when nothing changed from that day basically says child but how individually was the party as of november nineteenth two thousand and thirteen when the case went to trial  that was used to justify just justice act with decision by this court dismissing it is indeed to charles by now his interest to pass it doesn't say he's got to party membrane or leave nation name in both they didn't do it it was confusing i'm grant you but the thing is charles by now was there when evidence was being presented to the trial court as proceeding and fact is the court used terminology there was this prior proceeding but he was somewhat so work whether it's for well the difference is that when you go under for your collateral estop know they didn't use the terms because they knew that they couldn't because to do that in cases we cited to your honor's in our brief and it's you have to have a devotee of the party and there was no identity of parties here because if you go look back at thirteen m r thirty three and read both a confusing record and then an opinion from the power court that was correct but it does mean that the deed was not a sham tell you that what you're doing basically you're saying you can't just take this is a motion it's granted because the party is no longer a party interest that this by implication certain findings of fact pollutions of law by this court well as a matter of fact yes i am saying that because as a matter of fact that opinion the trash folks find is that that opinion pointed out years later nothing had changed not your honor if i want to trial has a has the owner of the property and lose the case and then while it's on appeal that we know by reading the opinion justice that we can refer back to the fact that the deed was granted the day before and recorded on the same day as the trial and you can't take the fact that charles dismiss wasn't in a nine motion it was in a four motion when you get to that point you realize that collateral stop or ratio to cotter's just don't work they're going to have to not defend against attorney for the city of baton next month will mark the eight year anniversary of the litigation that ultimately culminates with us being here today that's in june of but had been long sitting empty in the city of grafton began the order that time was very real i'm impressed that the court has clearly evidence that they are familiar with the facts so i will move it along that case of course result of any judgment finding that indeed the property was a dangerous and unsafe structure beyond reasonable prepare and authorize the city to lead the demolition which the city did by the w i think the record really frighted reflect that there was no attempt to post upon it prevent that the militia so the demolition proceeded even while the appeal was filed the case now before the court of all the second case is based on the circumstances of that first case plaintiff alleges that that particular demolition was on lawful and that as a result of the advised mr bond now he had no right to appear on behalf of a corporation since he's not an attorney on several occasions judge the story is gave a continuance to mr brown now to pain in attorney and judge of the stories advised him to do so he did not instead he showed up on the trial date which had been continued more than once and presented  that he had recorded that morning saying you can't proceed because now i'm the owner as the court has pointed out i believe and some of this questions judge was story of and it's in the record of c one eighty stated i deem the transfer to be a transfer in an effort to avoid this case and i believe he was meaning that  you didn't ask you didn't ask to substitute parties you asked to dismiss the cause of action had us to substitute parties of may well have been permitted but you did not you have ask ask to have it dismissed because the property had been sold i want to emphasize that no point in time did charles but now ever petition the court or the  to become a party in the action of the first case had he done so as judge the stories pointed out he may have been allowed to do so he probably would have been in my opinion all of the things that mr but now complains about today the fall for all of those things fall upon mr panetta he had a right to defend on behalf of america realty had he retained an attorney and come in and fought that case he was constructively aware of the litigation by the filing of the less than this he was actually great but he was denying correct that right is that right that is correct because he was not a party and he did not ask to become a party the judge on the nineteenth of november at the trial they did find that america really was into fault but he none of the last required or prove up of the issues which the city i was not the attorney in that case it was alan knapp of my office the city did present evidence they had the  presented the case in support of the demolition and the judge enter to have a question to serve at that point in that trial was that the position of mr brando that only was attempting to speak on behalf or to present evidence on behalf of from soffit if it really was any attempt to present evidence on behalf of the into other entity again i will agree with mr or take you on that particular point it is not entirely clear what mr been though was trying to do but no point did he make any statement of wanting to become a part and i strongly aware of the case he could choose to stay home and do nothing he could choose to comment won the case and indeed he engaged in discussions during the presentation the minutes judge the stories was very liberal about letting him ask some questions and so forth but he did not let him present evidence i think that is correct we were proceeding at that point against the name to defend that really there was no defendant named by mel and never was throughout the case and the appeal so on the record there zero indication as to who who appears to proudly day mr but now individually how on behalf of america that's not there the record reflects that merit realty was in the fall having not filed an answer or here and it was the only name party i don't recall from don't need to do that if mr by now wants to become a party he should come before this court request to do so beyond that we're into the doctrine of less than this and he is bound as a subsequent purchaser to the decision of the court in the first case that decision being that property can be demolished it is a dangerous unsafe structure beyond reasonable repair the city is authorized to demolish it place l against real estate for parts of the demolition all of which i believe has happened i'm not certain that lien was properly filed but i hope it was so he's bound by that and again if that's regrettable from his point of view he has no one to blame but himself is not the duty of the plaintiff to seek out the subsequent purchasers and again as i said have them serve first of all find them and have them serve that that's the whole doctrine of why less plan that says you are to be found by that decision of that or pertaining to that real estate subsection four which is a prior judgment and it seems like to me they're kind of that it might go hand in hand it might be an interesting article for a lawyer review to take up i view it analysis i have not done that to determine if that is in fact founded on race judicata or is it a variation a ratio to kata to me it just seems like a clear principle of law related to less you're bound by that decision as to that property so i can't give you a better answer is an interesting question but i think probably more suited to a law school he cannot now go back and read litigator whether that building needed to be demolished and whether the appropriate notice was sent to him that's all had he wanted to intervene in the trial or i think even in the appeal process he might have been allowed to do so the fact that he didn't try or he didn't consult with adequate legal advice to figure that out again that's h leave to appeal to the supreme court and regarding this court's prior twenty three order i don't believe so your honor but i i say that hesitating i did not in any way respond to anything to the supreme court had he filed a leave to appeal i think i would have been receiving notice i think i'd be aware of that and i'm not aware that he did starters dance around and then judge meyer is this eight nine to nineteen eighty four and i had a statue in my grief and it says that the cause of action is barred by a prior judgment which when he did it to lobbies away with the fact what that the important counsel says that he did not know or doesn't remember that they were given the right to buy in or near joining trials by now but as a matter of fact this court knew it in your decision page for it says transfer for the purpose of avoiding pursuit for the cause of action by the city that they were given that right they chose not to do that that means  you shouldn't be allowed to do that but here's what he was there he tried to produce evidence and amazingly enough again your honour's your opinion back dismissing the appeal when it said again the wording i deem to transfer to be a transfer an effort to avoid this case you didn't ask he didn't ask the substitute part because you asked to dismiss the cause of action at that point if he's asked dismissed  they were there he found the answer individually and or he did not file an answer individually he was there following a motion to dismiss and that was the night and that's when judge your story is sad it's a sham if you pass a substitute i may have done something different the court may have that's something different that's not direction that's not a court to try to what should the court have done that's probably a good as good question what this court should've done was first it gave them leave t