Elgo, J.

Daniel J. Krisch, with whom, on the brief, was Kenneth R. Slater, Jr., Hartford, for the appellant (defendant).

William E. McCoy, Uncasville, for the appellees (plaintiffs).

Elgo, Moll and Cradle, Js.

Elgo, J. This case involves an action to enforce a judgment that memorialized the rights of the general public to freely access and use a parcel of waterfront property in Old Lyme. Following a bench trial, the trial court concluded that the prior judgment in question precluded the defendant, Miami Beach Association, from restricting public access and use of that property. On appeal, the defendant challenges the propriety of that determination. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The following facts and procedural history are relevant to this appeal. At all relevant times, the plaintiffs, Kathleen Tracy, Robert Breen, Jerry Vowles, and Dee Vowles, resided in an area of Old Lyme known as Sound View, a neighborhood that is adjacent to the property in question. The defendant is a municipal corporation created by special act of the General Assembly in 1949. This appeal concerns the ability of the defendant to restrict public access and use of a parcel of waterfront property owned by the defendant and known as Miami Beach.

Miami Beach originally was owned by Harry J. Hilliard, who conveyed the property to a devisee through his will. Title thereafter changed hands between private individuals several times until the defendant acquired the property via quitclaim deed on July 12, 1951.

The present action concerns prior litigation that transpired soon after the defendant acquired the property. In November, 1951, the defendant constructed a six foot high iron fence that precluded access to Miami Beach. In response, twenty-six owners of property in the adjacent Sound View neighborhood brought an injunctive action (1952 action), alleging violations of their right to freely access and use Miami Beach. In the introductory paragraph of their complaint, the plaintiffs specifically alleged that, in bringing that injunction action, they were "also acting as members of the general public ...." In the first count of their complaint, the plaintiffs alleged that Hilliard "on or about 1900 laid out [Miami Beach] as an ‘open way for foot passengers and bicycles only’ " and had, "by deed to purchasers of property ... abutting [Miami Beach], expressly covenanted for himself, his heirs and assigns, that [Miami Beach] would remain an open way for the use of the public ...." The plaintiffs further alleged that Hilliard, "by laying out [Miami Beach] on various maps, through his deeds ... and by his actions, conduct and speech over a period of approximately fifty years, intended and designated [Miami Beach] as an open way for public use." The plaintiffs thus claimed that the erection of the iron fence wrongfully interfered with the rights memorialized in the respective deeds to their properties.

In count two, the plaintiffs claimed a prescriptive right to use Miami Beach "as an open way and as a beach." In the third and final count, the plaintiffs alleged that Hilliard, "[b]y various deeds subsequent to 1892 ... reserved [Miami Beach] as an open public way for foot passengers and bicycles," that Hilliard had dedicated Miami Beach "to the public," and that "the plaintiffs and other members of the general public accepted the same as a public way and beach and never abandoned it as such." The plaintiffs further alleged that, by erecting the iron fence, the defendant interfered with their rights as "members of the general public to [the] free and unimpeded use of [Miami Beach and] have prevented their free use and enjoyment thereof ...."

As the defendant acknowledged in its posttrial brief in the present case, "[i]t is not clear from the file as to whether trial commenced, but the file does reflect that exhibits were presented to the court," and, on February 18, 1953, the court rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiffs on counts one and three (1953 judgment). Vitello v. Corsino , Superior Court, judicial district of New London, Docket No. 20902 (February 18, 1953) (Troland, J. ). The court issued a written ruling in which it specifically found that, "prior to the year 1941, [Hilliard] dedicated for public use the strip of land known as [Miami Beach, and] ... this dedication for such use by [Hilliard] was accepted by the unorganized public and has been continuously used and enjoyed by the public down to the date of the beginning of this action." By way of relief, the court ordered in relevant part: "[T]he [defendant is] ... hereby enjoined ... from maintaining and establishing after [May 29] 1953, a steel and wire fence across said [Miami Beach] from the intersection of [Miami Beach] with the west line of Hartford Avenue in [Old Lyme]; and it is further adjudged that the [defendant] and [its] servants and agents ... are hereby ordered ... to remove from [Miami Beach] the said steel and wire fence which they have erected ... and it is further adjudged that the [defendant] and [its] servants and agents be, and they are hereby enjoined ... from interfering with the rights of the plaintiffs and the unorganized public to free entry and egress, and to free and unimpeded use and enjoyment of [Miami Beach] along its entire length and width, from now henceforth ...."

It is undisputed that, in the decades following the 1953 judgment, public use of Miami Beach continued without impediment. More than one-half century later, following complaints regarding litter and other inappropriate behavior by beachgoers, the defendant instituted what it termed a "Clean Beach Program" in the fall of 2017. That program involved the erection of a fence with an entrance gate, the monitoring of the gate by security personnel, and the creation of a fee structure and permit program to access and use Miami Beach. Residents of Old Lyme were permitted to enter and use the beach at no cost, provided they furnished proof of residency. Residents also were permitted to bring nonresident guests to the beach, so long as they purchased a guest pass from the defendant. Nonresident members of the public were obligated to pay a fee to enter and use Miami Beach.

In 2018, the plaintiffs commenced the present action to enforce the 1953 judgment. In the sole count of their complaint, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendant illegally interfered with the public's right to freely access and use Miami Beach "in direct violation" of the 1953 judgment. In so doing, they specifically alleged that the court, in rendering the 1953 judgment, "found that [Miami Beach] ... is dedicated for public use." They thus sought declaratory and injunctive relief, including an order mandating "the removal of the fence blocking public access to Miami Beach," an order "enjoining the defendant from charging fees and issuing permits for use of Miami Beach," and a declaration that "the [defendant's] actions preventing the plaintiffs’ use of Miami Beach ... are in violation of previous court orders." In its answer, the defendant admitted that the 1953 judgment "was entered" but averred that it "cannot admit or deny the [plaintiffs’] characterization of the judgment in that it speaks for itself." The defendant also summarily denied the allegations of paragraph 10 of the complaint. It did not assert any special defenses or counterclaim. In his opening remarks at trial, the plaintiffs’ counsel explained that the plaintiffs brought the present action to compel the defendant to "abide by the rulings of [the Superior Court] in 1953 to enforce the free and unimpeded right of the public to use Miami Beach." On cross-examination, the following colloquy occurred between Tracy and the defendant's counsel:

"[The Defendant's Counsel]: You want [Miami Beach] to be a public beach, correct?

"[Tracy]: I don't want it to be anything. I want the public to have access to that beach; that's what I want.

"[The Defendant's Counsel]: All right. And they do have access, don't they?

"[Tracy]: No. I don't think they have free, unencumbered access; no, I do not believe that they have that."

The defendant's counsel asked Tracy to "describe what rights" the 1953 judgment conferred on the public with respect to Miami Beach; Tracy responded that the 1953 judgment memorialized "the right to unimpeded access—free, unimpeded access to the unorganized public." Tracy also testified that she "read the [1953 judgment as mandating] that there should be no impediment to the public to use" Miami Beach and opined that "access to [Miami Beach] means you have access to the sand, not just to the water."

Breen, whose family had owned property in Sound View since 1895, was born the year after the 1953 judgment issued. In his testimony, Breen indicated that, with respect to the public's right to use the beach, he never understood it to be limited to "walking purposes only" and testified that the gate and fence erected by the defendant as part of the Clean Beach Program "denies me free and unimpeded access to [Miami Beach] that I had enjoyed the right to use whenever I pleased for most of my life." Breen thus indicated that he sought to have those barriers removed in accordance with the terms of the 1953 judgment. The defendant, by contrast, maintained that it could restrict the use of Miami Beach through the measures implemented as part of its Clean Beach Program.

By memorandum of decision dated January 15, 2020, the trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. After providing a factual overview of both the 1952 action and the present dispute, the court observed: "[F]inal judgments are ... presumptively valid ... and collateral attacks on their validity are disfavored. ... The law aims to invest judicial transactions with the utmost permanency consistent with justice. ... It has long been accepted that a system of laws upon which individuals, governments and organizations rely to resolve disputes is dependent on according finality to judicial decisions. ... The convention concerning finality of judgments has to be accepted if the idea of law is to be accepted .... [A] party should not be able to relitigate a matter which it already has had an opportunity to litigate." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) The court then emphasized that, "[o]nce a final judgment has been issued, it is within the equitable powers of the trial court to fashion whatever orders [are] required to protect the integrity of [its original] judgment, including injunctive relief." (Internal quotation marks omitted.)

After setting forth those principles of finality, the court noted that the plaintiffs were seeking to enforce the 1953 judgment. The court summarized the dispute between the parties as follows: "[T]he plaintiffs rely on the 1953 judgment of this court that found that [Hilliard] ... dedicated the beach to public use and the unorganized public accepted this dedication. The defendant claims, notwithstanding the 1953 judgment, that it owns Miami Beach and has the right to restrict access or use thereto."

The court then discussed the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel, finding that the parties were in privity with the parties to the 1952 action, that "[t]here is no evidence that the parties, particularly the defendant, were not presented an opportunity to litigate fully the controversy in 1953," and that the "present controversy is substantially similar to the [1952 action]; the facts and claims for unrestricted use of Miami Beach ... are identical." The court emphasized that the 1953 judgment "concluded any controversy on the defendant's restriction of the public's access by installation of a fence on the boundary of Miami Beach" and found that, "[t]he defendant, whatever laudable intentions it may have [in enacting the Clean Beach Program], does not have the right to restrict access to Miami Beach to permit holders or paying users in order to remediate such conduct." The court also noted that the defendant had offered "no evidence of any substantive legal change in the terms of the dedication of Miami Beach since the 1953 judgment. The evidence presented in this case fails to convince the court that [it should] exercise [its] discretion ... in order to reconsider the issues determined in the 1953 judgment. ... The defendant's installation of the fence, gated entrance, fees, and permits are restrictions on the public dedication of the beach that violate the 1953 judgment." Accordingly, the court rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiffs. In exercising its equitable powers to protect the integrity of the 1953 judgment, the court ordered as follows: "[T]he defendant is ordered to remove the fence installed on the boundary of [Miami Beach] now and hereinafter; the defendant is enjoined from maintaining or establishing any other fence on the boundary of [Miami Beach], now and hereinafter, and the defendant is further enjoined from charging fees and issuing permits for use of [Miami Beach] by the public. The defendant shall comply with the [1953] judgment, which bears repeating as follows: the defendant is further enjoined ‘from interfering with the rights of the plaintiffs and the unorganized public to free entry and egress, and to free and unimpeded use and enjoyment of [Miami Beach] along its entire length and width, now and hereinafter.’ " The defendant subsequently filed a motion for reargument, claiming, inter alia, that the court's decision exceeded the scope of the 1953 judgment. The court denied that motion, and this appeal followed.

I

APPLICABLE LEGAL PRINCIPLES

This case concerns the preclusionary effect of the 1953 judgment. For that reason, both the parties and the trial court discussed the doctrine of res judicata throughout this litigation, culminating in the court's determination that the measures implemented by the defendant as part of the Clean Beach Program were "restrictions on the public dedication of [Miami Beach] that violate the 1953 judgment." To properly determine the applicability of res judicata in the present case, additional context regarding that confounding doctrine is necessary.

Res judicata is a term of art of both general and specific meaning. Its general use stands for the proposition that a valid and final judgment should be accorded preclusive effect. As Justice Blackmun observed decades ago, "[t]he preclusive effects of former adjudication are discussed in varying and, at times, seemingly conflicting terminology, attributable to the evolution of preclusion concepts over the years. These effects are referred to collectively by most commentators as the doctrine of ‘res judicata.’ " Migra v. Warren City School District Board of Education , 465 U.S. 75, 77 n.1, 104 S. Ct. 892, 79 L. Ed. 2d 56 (1984) ; see also Taylor v. Sturgell , 553 U.S. 880, 892 n.5, 128 S. Ct. 2161, 171 L. Ed. 2d 155 (2008) (noting "confusing lexicon" surrounding preclusive effect of prior judgment). As the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts has explained, " ‘[r]es judicata’ is the generic term for various doctrines by which a judgment in one action has a binding effect in another" and whose fundamental purpose is "assuring that judgments are conclusive, thus avoiding relitigation of issues that were or could have been raised in the original action." (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Bagley v. Moxley , 407 Mass. 633, 636, 555 N.E.2d 229 (1990) ; see also State v. Ellis , 197 Conn. 436, 464–65, 497 A.2d 974 (1985) (related "concepts" of finality "express no more than the fundamental principle that once a matter has been fully and fairly litigated, and finally decided, it comes to rest"); Barr v. Resolution Trust Corp ., 837 S.W.2d 627, 628 (Tex. 1992) ("[b]roadly speaking, res judicata is the generic term for a group of related concepts concerning the conclusive effects given final judgments"). In its generic sense, "[r]es judicata encompasses four preclusive effects, each conceptually distinct, which a final personal judgment may have upon subsequent litigation. These are merger, direct estoppel, bar, and collateral estoppel." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Lee v. Spoden , 290 Va. 235, 245, 776 S.E.2d 798 (2015) ; see also Lawlor v. National Screen Service Corp. , 349 U.S. 322, 326 n.6, 75 S. Ct. 865, 99 L. Ed. 1122 (1955) (noting that "[t]he term res judicata is used broadly in the Restatement [(First) of Judgments] to cover merger, bar, collateral estoppel, and direct estoppel").

In its specific sense, res judicata refers particularly to claim preclusion and provides that "a former judgment on a claim, if rendered on the merits, is an absolute bar to a subsequent action [between the same parties or those in privity with them] on the same claim." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Girolametti v. Michael Horton Associates, Inc ., 332 Conn. 67, 75, 208 A.3d 1223 (2019). Under Connecticut law, the doctrine of res judicata is pleaded as a special defense. See, e.g., Carol Management Corp . v. Board of Tax Review , 228 Conn. 23, 27, 633 A.2d 1368 (1993) ; Larmel v. Metro North Commuter Railroad Co ., 200 Conn. App. 660, 667 n.9, 240 A.3d 1056 (2020), aff'd, 341 Conn. 332, 267 A.3d 162 (2021) ; Practice Book § 10-50. Its primary posture is defensive in nature, in that it bars relitigation of a claim on which "a valid and final personal judgment" has been rendered in favor of a party. 1 Restatement (Second), Judgments §§ 18 and 19 (1982). Indeed, we are aware of no Connecticut appellate authority in which res judicata has been endorsed for offensive use with respect to claim preclusion, and for good reason: "Offensive claim preclusion is nonexistent. A plaintiff cannot reassert a claim that he has already won." Robbins v. MED-1 Solutions, LLC , 13 F.4th 652, 657 (7th Cir. 2021) ; see also St. Paul Mercury Ins. Co . v. Williamson , 224 F.3d 425, 439 (5th Cir. 2000) (res judicata "is typically a defensive doctrine"); Suryan v. CSE Mortgage, L.L.C ., Docket No. 0452, 2017 WL 3667657, *15 (Md. Spec. App. August 25, 2017) ("Maryland has not recognized the offensive use of res judicata, and in those jurisdictions where its use has been attempted, it generally has been rejected").

In the present case, the plaintiffs did not attempt to wield the doctrine of res judicata offensively but, rather, sought something fundamentally distinct: vindication of the claim asserted in the 1952 action and embodied in the 1953 judgment. As the trial court noted in its memorandum of decision, the present action is one to enforce a prior judgment of the Superior Court.

An action to enforce a prior judgment is the consequence of the doctrine of merger, memorialized in the Restatement (Second) of Judgments and our decisional law, by which a plaintiff's "claim is extinguished and rights upon the judgment are substituted for it" following the rendering of a valid and final judgment. 1 Restatement (Second), supra, § 18, comment (a), p. 152; Lighthouse Landings, Inc . v. Connecticut Light & Power Co ., 300 Conn. 325, 348, 15 A.3d 601 (2011) ; see also Milwaukee County v. M. E. White Co ., 296 U.S. 268, 275, 56 S. Ct. 229, 80 L. Ed. 220 (1935) ("[a] cause of action on a judgment is different from that upon which the judgment was entered"); National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh v. Owenby , 42 Fed. Appx. 59, 63 (9th Cir. 2002) (explaining that "[t]he doctrine that a judgment creates its own cause of action is an entirely practical legal device, the purpose of which is to facilitate the goal of securing satisfaction of the original cause of action"), cert. denied, 538 U.S. 950, 123 S. Ct. 1629, 155 L. Ed. 2d 494 (2003) ; Fidelity National Financial, Inc . v. Friedman , 225 Ariz. 307, 310, 238 P.3d 118 (2010) ("every judgment continues to give rise to an action to enforce it, called an action upon a judgment" (internal quotation marks omitted)). Accordingly, when a party thereafter seeks to enforce those rights by maintaining "an action upon the judgment"; 1 Restatement (Second), supra, § 18 (1), pp. 151–52 ; Lighthouse Landings, Inc . v. Connecticut Light & Power Co ., supra, 348 ; it is not seeking to "relitigate a matter [that] it already has had an opportunity to litigate." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Wellswood Columbia, LLC v. Hebron , 327 Conn. 53, 66, 171 A.3d 409 (2017). Rather, it is attempting to enforce a valid judgment and, by extension, vindicate the very claim that gave rise thereto. For that reason, an action to enforce a prior judgment does not implicate res judicata in its specific sense.

Merger is a doctrine of preclusion that falls within res judicata in its generic sense. See Lawlor v. National Screen Service Corp ., supra, 349 U.S. at 326, 75 S.Ct. 865 ; Lee v. Spoden , supra, 290 Va. at 245, 776 S.E.2d 798. Merger has been referred to as a component of res judicata; see Freedom Mortgage Corp . v. Burnham Mortgage, Inc ., 569 F.3d 667, 672 (7th Cir. 2009) ; and as "an aspect of res judicata which prevents relitigation of existing judgments ...." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Allison-Bristow Community School District v. Iowa Civil Rights Commission , 461 N.W.2d 456, 460 (Iowa 1990). Accordingly, the doctrines of merger and res judicata in its generic sense "may be regarded as identical and, in some instances, the terms ‘res judicata’ and ‘merger’ have been used interchangeably." (Footnote omitted.) 46 Am. Jur. 2d 799, Judgments § 431 (2017); cf. Legassey v. Shulansky , 28 Conn. App. 653, 656, 611 A.2d 930 (1992) ("Connecticut's res judicata rules are derived from the theory of merger ... set out in the Restatement (Second) of Judgments").

That context convinces us that the issue of the preclusive effect of the 1953 judgment is more precisely viewed through the lens of the doctrine of merger and the Superior Court's authority to enforce a prior judgment, which implicates res judicata in its general sense. Although the trial court also discussed both claim preclusion and collateral estoppel in its memorandum of decision, we are mindful that a judicial opinion "must be read as a whole, without particular portions read in isolation, to discern the parameters of its holding." Fisher v. Big Y Foods, Inc ., 298 Conn. 414, 424–25, 3 A.3d 919 (2010) ; see also McGaffin v. Roberts , 193 Conn. 393, 408, 479 A.2d 176 (1984) ("[w]e examine the trial court's memorandum of decision to understand better the basis of the court's decision and to determine the reasoning for the conclusion reached by the trial court"), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1050, 105 S. Ct. 1747, 84 L. Ed. 2d 813 (1985). The court's decision expressly acknowledges the unique context in which the issue of preclusion arises in this case—an attempt by the plaintiffs to enforce a prior judgment of the Superior Court—and the court's reasoning comports with the principles of finality that underlie the doctrine of merger. Read as a whole, we therefore construe the court's decision to grant injunctive relief to the plaintiffs in this action to enforce a prior judgment as an exercise of its equitable powers to protect the integrity of the 1953 judgment.

II

SCOPE OF 1953 JUDGMENT

In its memorandum of decision, the court held that the measures implemented by the defendant as part of the Clean Beach Program were "restrictions on the public dedication of [Miami Beach] that violate the 1953 judgment." The defendant, by contrast, essentially argues that those measures merely "regulate" access and use of Miami Beach and, thus, are outside the scope of the 1953 judgment. Whether the court properly determined that the defendant's conduct fell within the scope of the 1953 judgment presents a question of law, over which our review is plenary. See Alpha Beta Capital Partners, L.P . v. Pursuit Investment Management, LLC , 193 Conn. App. 381, 439, 219 A.3d 801 (2019) (affording plenary review "to the extent that we are required to interpret the court's judgment"), cert. denied, 334 Conn. 911, 221 A.3d 446 (2020), and cert. denied, 334 Conn. 911, 221 A.3d 446 (2020) ; see also Garguilo v. Moore , 156 Conn. 359, 365, 242 A.2d 716 (1968) (explaining, in action to enforce prior judgment, that "resolution of the issues raised in this action necessarily required the trial court to interpret the terms of the [prior] judgment").

"The construction of a judgment is a question of law for the court. ... As a general rule, judgments are to be construed in the same fashion as other written instruments. ... The determinative factor is the intention of the court as gathered from all parts of the judgment. ... The judgment should admit of a consistent construction as a whole. ... To determine the meaning of a judgment, we must ascertain the intent of the court from the language used and, if necessary, the surrounding circumstances." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Wheelabrator Bridgeport, L.P . v. Bridgeport , 320 Conn. 332, 355, 133 A.3d 402 (2016).

The court's interpretation of the 1953 judgment arises in the context of an action to enforce that judgment. It is well established that "[t]he Superior Court has the inherent authority to enforce its orders." Rozbicki v. Gisselbrecht , 152 Conn. App. 840, 846, 100 A.3d 909 (2014), cert. denied, 315 Conn. 922, 108 A.3d 1123 (2015). As our Supreme Court has explained, "the trial court's continuing jurisdiction to effectuate prior judgments ... is not separate from, but, rather, derives from, its equitable authority to vindicate judgments." (Emphasis in original.) AvalonBay Communities, Inc . v. Plan & Zoning Commission , 260 Conn. 232, 241, 796 A.2d 1164 (2002). For that reason, "it is within the equitable powers of the trial court to fashion whatever orders [are] required to protect the integrity of [its original] judgment." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Rocque v. Light Sources, Inc ., 275 Conn. 420, 433, 881 A.2d 230 (2005) ; see also Connecticut Pharmaceutical Assn., Inc . v. Milano , 191 Conn. 555, 563–64, 468 A.2d 1230 (1983) ("the court, in the exercise of its equitable powers, necessarily had the authority to fashion whatever orders were required to protect the integrity" of prior judgment); National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty v. United States Veterans Administration , 98 F. Supp. 2d 25, 26–27 (D. D.C. 2000) ("[a] court's powers to enforce its own injunction by issuing additional orders is broad ... particularly where the enjoined party has not fully complied with the court's earlier orders" (citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted)).

Historically, courts of equity entertained actions to execute a decree, the precursor to actions to enforce a judgment. "A bill to execute a decree, is a bill assuming, as its basis, the principle of the decree, and seeking merely to carry it into effect." Huddleston v. Williams , 48 Tenn. 579, 581 (1870). As the United States Supreme Court explained: "It is well settled that a court of equity has jurisdiction to carry into effect its own orders, decrees, and judgments .... [W]here a supplemental bill is brought in aid of a decree, it is merely to carry out and to give fuller effect to that decree, and not to obtain relief of a different kind on a different principle ...." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Root v. Woolworth , 150 U.S. 401, 410–11, 14 S. Ct. 136, 37 L. Ed. 1123 (1893). The "main purpose" of an action to enforce a judgment likewise is to "facilitate the ultimate goal of securing satisfaction of the original cause of action." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Salinas v. Ramsey , 234 So. 3d 569, 571 (Fla. 2018).

Under Connecticut law, when a party obtains a valid and final judgment, "[t]he plaintiff's original claim is ... merged in the judgment." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Duhaime v. American Reserve Life Ins. Co ., 200 Conn. 360, 364, 511 A.2d 333 (1986). An action to enforce a judgment ordinarily involves no new claim or cause of action—it merely is an attempt to carry out and effectuate a prior decree. See Root v. Woolworth , supra, 150 U.S. at 411, 14 S.Ct. 136. For that reason, an action to enforce a judgment necessarily involves the same underlying claim as that which animated the prior judgment.

Accordingly, when a party seeks to enforce a prior judgment, the critical question is whether the prior judgment encompasses the conduct of which the plaintiff now complains. See Garguilo v. Moore , supra, 156 Conn. at 361–65, 242 A.2d 716 (in "action to enforce the terms of the [prior] judgment," it is "necessary to inquire into the meaning and scope of the provisions contained in that judgment"). Because a valid and final judgment manifests the merger of all claims that were brought in the prior action, conduct that falls within the scope of the prior judgment necessarily involves the same claim as that advanced in the prior action and, thus, is subject to preclusion. Moreover, "[w]hen the plaintiff brings an action upon the judgment, the defendant cannot avail himself of defenses which he might have interposed in the original action" because those defenses would be responsive to the merged claims. 1 Restatement (Second), supra, § 18, comment (c), p. 154.

Because the critical inquiry in considering an action to enforce is whether the conduct in question is within the scope of the prior judgment, it is necessary to compare the complaint in the second action with the claims that were (1) alleged in the pleadings of the prior action and (2) resolved in the judgment rendered by the court. See Commissioner of Environmental Protection v. Connecticut Building Wrecking Co ., 227 Conn. 175, 190, 629 A.2d 1116 (1993) (measuring preclusive effect of prior judgment by comparing "the complaint in the second action with the pleadings and the judgment in the earlier action"); Dept. of Public Safety v. Freedom of Information Commission , 103 Conn. App. 571, 582 n.10, 930 A.2d 739 (judicial decision "stands only for those issues presented to, and considered by, the court"), cert. denied, 284 Conn. 930, 934 A.2d 245 (2007) ; cf. Nutmeg Housing Development Corp . v. Colchester , 324 Conn. 1, 14 n.4, 151 A.3d 358 (2016) ("[i]t is fundamental to our law that the right of a [party] to recover is limited to the allegations in his [pleadings]" (internal quotation marks omitted)).

Accordingly, our analysis begins with an examination of the 1952 action. At issue was the defendant's construction of a six foot high iron fence that impaired the ability of the general public to freely access and use Miami Beach. In the third count of their complaint, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendant had "interfered with the rights ... of the general public to free and unimpeded use of [Miami Beach], [had] prevented their free use and enjoyment thereof, and [had] caused ... said general public irreparable loss and injury."

In rendering judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, the court first noted that the plaintiffs in the 1952 action sought both "a mandatory injunction requiring [the defendant] to remove from [Miami Beach] all obstructions to free entry and egress thereon," and "an injunction restraining [the defendant] from interfering with the rights of the plaintiffs to free entry and egress, and to free and unimpeded use and enjoyment of [Miami Beach] along its entire length and width from now henceforth ...." The court specifically found that Hilliard had "dedicated for public use the strip of land known as [Miami Beach]" and that "this dedication for such use by [Hilliard] was accepted by the unorganized public and has been continuously used and enjoyed by the public down to the date of the beginning of [the 1952] action." The court then ordered in relevant part: "[The defendant is] hereby enjoined ... from maintaining and establishing ... a steel and wire fence across [Miami Beach and must] remove from [Miami Beach] the ... fence which [it has] erected ... and it is further adjudged that [the defendant is] hereby enjoined ... from interfering with the rights of the plaintiffs and the unorganized public to free entry and egress, and to free and unimpeded use and enjoyment of [Miami Beach] along its entire length and width, from now henceforth ...."

In the present case, the plaintiffs alleged in their complaint that the court, in rendering the 1953 judgment, had "found that [Miami Beach] ... is dedicated for public use." The plaintiffs further alleged that measures implemented by the defendant as part of the Clean Beach Program illegally interfered with the right of the general public to freely access and use Miami Beach. See footnote 12 of this opinion. The plaintiffs thus requested, inter alia, injunctive relief "ordering the removal of the fence blocking public access to Miami Beach" and "enjoining the defendant from charging fees and issuing permits for use of Miami Beach."

In its principal appellate brief, the defendant concedes that it "does not have the right to prevent access" to Miami Beach in light of the mandate of the 1953 judgment but argues that the Clean Beach Program and fence merely "regulate" access and use of Miami Beach. For that reason, the defendant claims that the court improperly concluded that the 1953 judgment precludes it from "defending" its Clean Beach Program because it is not the same claim, and its motives and the expectations of the parties are different. We do not agree.

In the third count of their complaint, the plaintiffs in the 1952 action alleged in relevant part that the defendant interfered with the rights of the plaintiffs and other members of the general public "to free and unimpeded use" of Miami Beach, and alleged that the defendant had "prevented their free use and enjoyment thereof ...." In rendering judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, the court agreed and found that Hilliard had "dedicated for public use the strip of land known as [Miami Beach]," and that "this dedication for such use by [Hilliard] was accepted by the unorganized public and has been continuously used and enjoyed by the public down to the date of the beginning of [the 1952] action." The court then ordered in relevant part: "[The defendant is] hereby enjoined ... from maintaining and establishing ... a steel and wire fence across [Miami Beach and must] remove from [Miami Beach] the ... fence which [it has] erected ... and it is further adjudged that [the defendant is] hereby enjoined ... from interfering with the rights of the plaintiffs and the unorganized public to free entry and egress, and to free and unimpeded use and enjoyment of [Miami Beach] along its entire length and width, from now henceforth ...." (Emphasis added.) Under Connecticut law, "judgments are to be construed in the same fashion as other written instruments." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Wheelabrator Bridgeport, L.P . v. Bridgeport , supra, 320 Conn. at 355, 133 A.3d 402. It is well established that "[a]n interpretation which gives effect to all provisions of the [written instrument] is preferred to one which renders part of the writing superfluous, useless or inexplicable." 11 R. Lord, Williston on Contracts (4th Ed. 2012) § 32:5, p. 704; see also 24 Leggett Street Ltd. Partnership v. Beacon Industries, Inc ., 239 Conn. 284, 298, 685 A.2d 305 (1996) (parties do not insert meaningless provisions in written agreements); Downs v. National Casualty Co. , 146 Conn. 490, 495, 152 A.2d 316 (1959) ("[e]very provision is to be given effect, if possible, and no word or clause eliminated as meaningless, or disregarded as inoperative"); Johnson v. Allen , 70 Conn. 738, 744, 40 A. 1056 (1898) ("We cannot ... regard [certain provisions] as surplusage, nor ignore them. We must take the [written instrument] as a whole as we find it and give effect, if possible to all its terms ....").

The 1953 judgment plainly recognized the right of the general public both "to free entry and egress" on Miami Beach and "to free and unimpeded use and enjoyment of [Miami Beach] along its entire length and width ...." As such, the court properly concluded that the defendant's erection of a fence, a gated entrance, and the imposition of fees and permits are restrictions encompassed by, and thus violative of, the 1953 judgment.

The conduct complained of by the plaintiffs in the present case—the construction of a fence with an entrance gate, and the creation of a fee structure and permit program to use Miami Beach—is within the scope of the 1953 judgment, which enjoined the defendant "from maintaining and establishing" a fence on the property and from interfering with the right of the "unorganized public to free entry and egress, and to free and unimpeded use and enjoyment of [Miami Beach] along its entire length and width ...." We therefore conclude that the court properly determined that the 1953 judgment precluded the defendant from restricting public access and use of Miami Beach.

III

PRIVITY

The defendant also claims that the court improperly concluded that the plaintiffs were in privity with the plaintiffs in the 1952 action such that they could enforce the 1953 judgment. More specifically, it argues that the plaintiffs, as nonparties to the 1952 action, are not entitled to the benefits of that prior judgment. We do not agree. "Privity is a word which expresses the idea that as to certain matters and in certain circumstances persons who are not parties to an action but who are connected with it in their interests are affected by the judgment with reference to interests involved in the action, as if they were parties. ... The statement that a person is bound by or has the benefit of a judgment as a privy is a short method of stating that under the circumstances and for the purpose of the case at hand he is bound by and entitled to the benefits of all or some of the rules of res judicata by way of merger ...." (Citations omitted.) Restatement (First), Judgments § 83, comment (a), pp. 389–90 (1942). As our Supreme Court has explained, "[p]rivity is a difficult concept to define precisely. ... There is no prevailing definition of privity to be followed automatically in every case. It is not a matter of form or rigid labels; rather it is a matter of substance. In determining whether privity exists, we employ an analysis that focuses on the functional relationships of the parties. Privity is not established by the mere fact that persons may be interested in the same question or in proving or disproving the same set of facts. Rather, it is, in essence, a shorthand statement for the principle that [the doctrines of preclusion] should be applied only when there exists such an identification in interest of one person with another as to represent the same legal rights so as to justify preclusion." (Citation omitted.) Mazziotti v. Allstate Ins. Co ., 240 Conn. 799, 813–14, 695 A.2d 1010 (1997).

"A key consideration in determining the existence of privity is the sharing of the same legal right by the parties allegedly in privity." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., at 813, 695 A.2d 1010. "[O]ne person is in privity with another and is bound by and entitled to the benefits of a judgment as though he was a party when there is such an identification of interest between the two as to represent the same legal right ...." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Collins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co ., 34 F.3d 172, 176 (3d Cir. 1994).

The present case involves the same legal rights that were asserted in the 1952 action and memorialized in the 1953 judgment. The plaintiffs in the 1952 action specifically alleged in their complaint that they were "acting as members of the general public" to vindicate "the rights of the plaintiffs and other members of the general public to free and unimpeded use" of Miami Beach. In rendering the 1953 judgment, the court enjoined the defendant "from interfering with the rights of ... the unorganized public to free entry and egress, and to free and unimpeded use and enjoyment of [Miami Beach] along its entire length and width, from now henceforth ...." The present case is predicated entirely on those same legal rights, as the plaintiffs asserted illegal interference with their rights as members of the general public to access and use Miami Beach; see footnote 10 of this opinion; in accordance with the mandate of the 1953 judgment.

It also is noteworthy that this action involves a real property dispute. As the United States Supreme Court has observed, "[t]he policies advanced by the doctrine of res judicata perhaps are at their zenith in cases concerning real property, land and water." Nevada v. United States , 463 U.S. 110, 129 n.10, 103 S. Ct. 2906, 77 L. Ed. 2d 509 (1983). For that reason, "[a] finding of privity [when there is a sufficiently close relationship between the parties] is particularly appropriate in cases involving interests in real property ...." Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc . v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency , 322 F.3d 1064, 1082 (9th Cir. 2003). Here, the same parcel of property underlies both the 1952 action and the present action. In addition, the source of the right underlying the claims of both sets of plaintiffs is the same—the conveyance instruments executed by Hilliard, the original owner of the property in question. Moreover, both actions originated from nearly identical circumstances. In each instance, the defendant instituted measures that restricted the public's ability to freely access and use Miami Beach without impediment and faced legal challenges from residents of the abutting Sound View neighborhood who sought to vindicate their rights as members of the general public.

As the Restatement (Second) of Judgments notes, "[a] judgment in an action that determines interests in real ... property ... [c]onclusively determines the claims of the parties to the action regarding their interests; and ... [h]as preclusive effects upon a person who succeeds to the interest of a party to the same extent as upon the party himself." 2 Restatement (Second), supra, § 43, p. 1. The party facing preclusion here—the defendant—was a party to the 1952 action. Because that action expressly was predicated on the plaintiffs’ interests as members of the general public, and because the 1953 judgment, by its plain terms, memorialized the right of "the unorganized public" to freely access and use Miami Beach, that judgment has preclusive effect on the defendant vis-à-vis members of the general public like the plaintiffs here.

We also are mindful that the "crowning consideration [in resolving the privity question is] that the interest of the party to be precluded must have been sufficiently represented in the prior action so that [preclusion] is not inequitable." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Girolametti v. Michael Horton Associates, Inc ., supra, 332 Conn. at 77, 208 A.3d 1223. The party to be precluded here—the defendant—was a party to the 1952 action, and, thus, the core concern in a privity analysis is not implicated here. As the court found in its memorandum of decision, "[t]here is no evidence that ... [the defendant was] not presented an opportunity to litigate fully the controversy in 1953." The record before us supports that determination and confirms that the defendant participated robustly in the 1952 action.

In light of the foregoing, the trial court properly concluded that the plaintiffs were in privity with the prior plaintiffs and thus entitled to the benefits of the 1953 judgment. As members of the general public, the plaintiffs in the present case share the same legal right as the plaintiffs in the 1952 action; see Mazziotti v. Allstate Ins. Co ., supra, 240 Conn. at 813–14, 695 A.2d 1010 ; and the record demonstrates that the defendant was a party to that prior action. Moreover, the policies that underlie our preclusion doctrines—"achieving finality and repose, promoting judicial economy, and preventing inconsistent judgments"; Girolametti v. Michael Horton Associates, Inc. , supra, 332 Conn. at 76, 208 A.3d 1223 ;—would be served by finding the plaintiffs in privity with the plaintiffs in the 1952 action and permitting them to maintain this action to enforce the 1953 judgment. We therefore conclude that the plaintiffs were proper parties in the present case.

IV

EQUITABLE CONSIDERATIONS

As a final matter, we note that, when an action to enforce involves a judgment that "calls for performance, positive or negative, over a period of time, the question may arise whether circumstances have so changed as to make enforcement inequitable." 1 Restatement (Second), supra, § 18, comment (c), p. 155. On appeal, the defendant argues that it is unfair to bind it to the terms of the 1953 judgment due to the passage of decades. We disagree.

As the court found in its memorandum of decision, the defendant offered "no evidence of any substantive legal change in the terms of the dedication of Miami Beach since the 1953 judgment." Unlike the stipulated judgment at issue in Nauss v. Pinkes , 2 Conn. App. 400, 480 A.2d 568, cert. denied, 194 Conn. 808, 483 A.2d 612 (1984), the 1953 judgment here contains no temporal limitations on the relief it provided. Moreover, the public thereafter used and enjoyed Miami Beach for more than sixty years without obstruction by the defendant. That conduct over one-half of a century demonstrates that both the defendant and members of the general public expected the terms of the 1953 judgment to govern the use of Miami Beach in perpetuity and undermines the defendant's claim that it is inequitable to enforce that judgment now.

Furthermore, the fact that the defendant's noncompliance with the 1953 judgment arose decades later has little bearing on the plaintiffs’ ability to vindicate the rights memorialized therein. Although the General Assembly has imposed a twenty-five year statute of limitations on an action to enforce a judgment for money damages; see General Statutes § 52-598 ; no statutory limitation period exists for an action to enforce a judgment that is injunctive in nature. See Quickpower International Corp . v. Danbury , 69 Conn. App. 756, 759, 796 A.2d 622 (2002) (concluding that limitation period contained in " § 52-598 (a) does not apply" because plaintiff was "seeking an injunction, not damages"); cf. Bear v. Iowa District Court , 540 N.W.2d 439, 441 (Iowa 1995) ("[t]he mere passage of time ... does not invalidate a permanent injunction").

As the court specifically noted in setting forth the applicable legal standard in its memorandum of decision, "it is within the equitable powers of the trial court to fashion whatever orders [are] required to protect the integrity of [its original] judgment." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Rocque v. Light Sources, Inc ., supra, 275 Conn. at 433, 881 A.2d 230 ; see also Connecticut Pharmaceutical Assn., Inc. v. Milano , supra, 191 Conn. at 563–64, 468 A.2d 1230. The appellate courts of this state review "the exercise of a trial court's equitable powers for an abuse of discretion." JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Assn . v. Essaghof , 336 Conn. 633, 639, 249 A.3d 327 (2020). On the record before us, we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in exercising its equitable authority to vindicate the 1953 judgment with respect to the plaintiffs’ right to freely access and use Miami Beach.

The judgment is affirmed.

In this opinion CRADLE, J., concurred.

MOLL, J., concurring in the judgment.

I agree with parts I, II, and IV of the majority opinion and, on the basis of the analysis set forth therein, concur that the trial court properly concluded that the 1953 judgment precludes the defendant, Miami Beach Association, from restricting public access and use of the property at issue. I disagree with the analysis set forth in part III of the majority opinion, however, because, having agreed with the majority that offensive res judicata, in its specific sense as the majority describes it, is not available under Connecticut law, I do not agree with the majority's implicit endorsement in part III of its opinion that there remains a privity requirement that the plaintiffs must satisfy under the circumstances of this case, i.e., where the beneficiaries of the 1953 judgment are members of the unorganized public. And although the majority claims to disavow the requirement of a privity showing; see footnote 22 of the majority opinion; the majority nonetheless requires one insofar as it addresses, and rejects on the merits, the defendant's claim in part III of its opinion.

In contrast, I consider the defendant's claim that the plaintiffs are not in privity with the plaintiffs in the 1952 action to be based on the faulty premise that the offensive use of res judicata is available under Connecticut law—a premise that the majority properly rejects in part I of its opinion. In my view, the defendant's challenge, when properly framed, instead implicates the distinct question of whether the plaintiffs have standing to bring this enforcement action. Here, the requirement that a party must have standing is readily satisfied by virtue of the fact that the plaintiffs are members of the unorganized public protected by the 1953 judgment. See Connecticut Podiatric Medical Assn . v. Health Net of Connecticut, Inc ., 302 Conn. 464, 469, 28 A.3d 958 (2011) ("[i]t is axiomatic that a party must have standing to assert a claim in order for the court to have subject matter jurisdiction over the claim" (internal quotation marks omitted)). Accordingly, with respect to part III of the majority opinion, I concur in the judgment only.