Opinion ID: 2444824
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Towers

Text: On March 14, 2006, the trial court granted the Towers defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of standing because it concluded that WTRA did not represent a majority of the heads of household that had resided in the housing accommodation for at least ninety days prior to the date of the challenged transaction, as required by the Sale Act. The court dismissed all claims related to the Towers without prejudice. WTRA responded by recruiting additional members to cure the standing problem and filing a second complaint on November 30, 2006, alleging essentially the same claims as in the original complaint. The trial court initially stayed this action, pending resolution of the appeal regarding the Townhouses. But the Towers defendants moved to lift the stay in order to file a summary judgment motion on the grounds that the transactions regarding the Towers were not a sale as defined by the Sale Act. The Towers defendants also filed a separate motion for summary judgment, arguing that WTRA's claims were res judicata given the trial court's earlier summary judgment ruling regarding the Townhouses. On January 30, 2008, Judge Robert E. Morin granted both motions on two grounds: (1) res judicata, and (2) because the Towers transactions did not constitute a sale under the Sale Act. WTRA filed a timely notice of appeal, and we consolidated the two appeals.