Opinion ID: 1537255
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Prior Litigation of the Portland Company's Property Interest

Text: [¶ 20] The City argues that the court erred in holding that the doctrine of res judicata precludes the City from litigating the issue whether the Portland Company has an appurtenant easement or some other interest, or whether the Portland Company's interest has been extinguished. The City argues that the prior litigation does not resolve these issues. [¶ 21] We review a grant of a summary judgment de novo, considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the party against whom judgment has been granted to decide whether the parties' statements of material facts and the referenced record material reveal a genuine issue of material fact. Brawn v. Oral Surgery Assocs., 2003 ME 11, ¶ 15, 819 A.2d 1014, 1022 (quotation marks omitted). We will affirm a grant of summary judgment if the record reflects that there is no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Burdzel v. Sobus, 2000 ME 84, ¶ 6, 750 A.2d 573, 575. [¶ 22] We review de novo a determination that res judicata bars a particular litigation. Portland Water Dist. v. Town of Standish, 2008 ME 23, ¶ 7, 940 A.2d 1097, 1099. Under the doctrine of res judicata, a party and its privies are barred from relitigating claims or issues that have already been decided. Id. ¶¶ 7-9, 940 A.2d at 1099-1100. Issue preclusion, or collateral estoppel, prevents the relitigation of factual issues already decided if the identical issue was determined by a prior final judgment, and the party estopped had a fair opportunity and incentive to litigate the issue in a prior proceeding. Id. ¶ 9, 940 A.2d at 1100 (quotation marks omitted). [¶ 23] The Portland Company is entitled to a summary judgment as a matter of law on this issue because the prior litigation determined that the Portland Company's predecessor-in-interest had an appurtenant easement that had not been extinguished or abandoned. The court did not err in concluding that the doctrine of res judicata precludes relitigation of that finding. Although the City argues that the extinguishment issue should not be considered barred by res judicata because it was decided only as of the time of the prior litigation, the only relevant event since then is the City's own eminent domain proceeding. The City cannot use its own eminent domain proceeding to argue that the Portland Company has no valid property interest.