Title: Scott v. City of Newport

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

Scott v. City of Newport (2002-457); 177 Vt. 491; 857 A.2d 317

2004 VT 64

[Filed 29-Jul-2004]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                                 2004 VT 64

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2002-457

                              APRIL TERM, 2004

  Richard and Daniel Scott and 	       }	APPEALED FROM:
  Bluffside Farms, Inc.	               }
                                       }
       v.	                       }	Orleans Superior Court
                                       }	
  City of Newport	               }
                                       }	DOCKET NO. 158-6-99 OsCv

                                                Trial Judge:  Dennis R. Pearson

             In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       ¶  1.  Plaintiffs Richard Scott, Daniel Scott, and Bluffside Farms,
  Inc. (collectively, the Scotts) filed this action against defendant City of
  Newport, seeking a declaration that they are the owners of a 31-foot strip
  of land in the City, the traveled portion of which is known as Bigelow's
  Bluff Road.  The court granted summary judgment in favor of the City,
  ruling that the ownership issue had been conclusively determined against
  the Scotts in an earlier adjudication in which plaintiffs had challenged a
  site plan application by their neighbors the Carriers,  the trial court had
  ruled that Bigelow's Bluff Road was a public street, and this Court had
  affirmed.  See In re Carrier, 155 Vt. 152, 157, 582 A.2d 110, 113 (1990). 
  The Scotts contend the court erred in applying the doctrine of collateral
  estoppel, or issue preclusion.  We affirm.
   
       ¶  2.  The facts of the Scott's and Carrier's procedurally
  complicated four-year litigation are provided in detail in Carrier, 155 Vt.
  at 154-56, 582 A.2d  at 111-12.  We present here only a summary of events
  related to the road.  After purchasing a 10.5-acre parcel in the City, the
  Carriers applied for site-plan approval of a planned nine-lot residential
  subdivision.  Plaintiffs here (Bluffside Farms, Inc., and its owners the
  Scotts) opposed the application, and later appealed the planning
  commission's partial approval of the project to superior court.   See 24
  V.S.A. §§ 4464, 4471 (giving "interested persons" party status to appeal
  decision of board of adjustment to superior court) (1993). (FN1)  A central
  issue throughout the litigation was whether Bigelow Bluff Road was a public
  road and, if so, whether it and the development's interior roads could
  provide safe vehicular access and circulation into and throughout the
  subdivision as required by pertinent statutes and town bylaws.  See id. §
  4406(2) (prohibiting land development on lots without either frontage on a
  public road or waters, or permanent access by an easement of at least
  twenty feet in width); Newport City Zoning Regulation § 502 (same) (1987);
  id. § 352 (requiring "maximum safety of vehicular circulation between the
  site and the street network").

       ¶  3.  Throughout the earlier litigation - which involved two
  planning commission decisions, two appeals to superior court (including two
  trials and a partial re-trial), and the appeal to this Court - the Scotts
  argued, as they do now, that they owned Bigelow Bluff Road by virtue of a
  1985 quitclaim deed from Rudolf Bigelow.  Therefore, the Scotts contended
  that the Carrier's development was prohibited under 24 V.S.A. § 4406(2) and
  City zoning regulations.  During the first appeal to superior court, the
  Carriers crossclaimed against the City, contending that the City had
  acquired title to the road by dedication and acceptance prior to 1985, and
  counterclaimed against the Scotts, asserting that the 1985 quitclaim deed
  was fraudulent and without consideration.  The Orleans Superior Court,
  after a de novo hearing, concluded that Bigelow Bluff Road was dedicated to
  and accepted by the City prior to 1985, and was therefore public. The court
  thus determined that it was unnecessary to reach the Carrier's counterclaim
  against the Scotts.  Regardless of the road's status, because it was too
  narrow to meet City safety requirements, and for other reasons, the court
  denied the site plan application and dismissed all claims with prejudice.

       ¶  4.  After the City denied Carrier's revised site plan
  application, the Carriers again appealed to superior court.  The Scotts
  moved to dismiss the appeal, claiming among other things, res judicata
  regarding the ownership and safety status of Bigelow Bluff Road.  The court
  rejected the Scott's motion.  After a plenary three-day trial on all site
  plan issues, the court again concluded that the 31-foot strip of property
  known as Bigelow Bluff Road had been a public road since long before 1985. 
  In amended findings issued a few months later, the court specifically found
  that an earlier Bigelow, Charles F.  Bigelow, dedicated the road to the
  City of Newport in the early 1900s, and that the City accepted it by
  providing continual maintenance since 1949.  Nonetheless, the court found
  that the road's existing twelve to seventeen foot width was insufficient to
  meet City traffic safety requirements and thus denied the site plan
  application.  After a partial re-trial regarding planned reconstruction of
  the road, the court finally permitted the Carrier's development. 

       ¶  5.  The Scott's then appealed to this Court arguing, inter alia,
  that the court lacked jurisdiction to determine the status of Bigelow's
  Bluff Road as a public street, and that necessary parties were absent.  We
  rejected these claims, concluding that the road's status as a public
  highway was a "threshold requirement for obtaining site plan approval"
  under the zoning regulation and state law, and that it was "perfectly
  proper" for the court to address the issue.  See Carrier, 155 Vt. at 162,
  582 A.2d  at 116.  We also found that "all parties necessary for the court's
  declaration concerning the road were present."  Id.

       ¶  6.  Almost ten years later, the Scotts commenced this declaratory
  relief action against the City, seeking a determination that they held
  title to the identical 31-foot strip of land that included Bigelow's Bluff
  Road.  The City moved for summary judgment, asserting that the  issue had
  been conclusively adjudicated against plaintiffs in the Carrier action. 
  The Scotts filed a cross-motion for summary judgment. The court ruled in
  favor of the City and against the Scotts, concluding that the Scotts were
  precluded under the doctrine of collateral estoppel from relitigating the
  status of the road.  Accordingly, the court entered judgment in favor of
  the City.  This appeal followed. 
   
       ¶  7.  In their brief, the Scotts state nine separate "arguments" on
  appeal (labeled "A" through "I"), sixteen "issues" for review, and seven
  "claims of error."  Many of the assertions overlap or represent the same
  argument differently stated.  As consolidated, the Scotts claims are that
  the trial court erred in applying the doctrine of collateral estoppel
  because: (1) neither they or the City were "parties" to the earlier
  judgment; (2) the prior decision was not a personal judgment binding
  against them; (3) it was not a final judgment because the site-plan
  approval eventually expired; (4) the two cases did not involve the same
  issue; (4) they were not given a full and fair opportunity to litigate
  ownership of the road in the earlier action; and (6) issue preclusion is
  inapplicable and unfair since they were unaware that participating in the
  zoning decision could affect their personal claim to title. 

       ¶  8.  "Collateral estoppel, or issue preclusion, bars the
  subsequent relitigation of an issue that was actually litigated and decided
  in a prior case where that issue was necessary to the resolution  of the
  dispute."  Alpine Haven Prop. Owners Ass'n v. Deptula, 2003 VT 51, ¶ 13,