Opinion
No. TTD CV 09 4010961 S
August 24, 2009
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
The plaintiffs, Michael and Margaret Poirier, move for a temporary injunction to prohibit the town of Enfield from utilizing a temporary and a permanent easement acquired by the town through eminent domain, which easements burden the plaintiffs' property on Broadleaf Lane in Enfield.
This motion arises in a case brought by the plaintiffs seeking monetary damages under various legal theories addressing allegations that the town's exercise of its prerogatives under the easements have been exceeded and caused damage to portions of the plaintiffs' property other than that which is subject to the easements.
"A temporary injunction is a preliminary order of court, granted at the outset or during the pendency of an action, forbidding the performance of the threatened acts described . . . until the rights of the parties . . . shall have been finally determined by the court." Deming v. Bradstreet, 85 Conn. 650, 659 (1912). The primary purpose of a temporary injunction is to maintain the status quo until the rights of the various parties can be sorted out, after a hearing on the merits. Clinton v. Middlesex Assurance Co., 37 Conn.App. 269, 279 (1995).
In order for the court to issue a temporary injunction, the movants must establish (1) a reasonable probability of success on the merits at a final hearing; (2) irreparable injury unless the injunctions granted; and (3) no adequate remedy at law. Covenant Radio Corp. v. Ten Eighty Corp., 35 Conn.Sup. 1, 3 (1977). If irreparable injury is demonstrated, the trial court ought to issue the temporary injunction, unless it is clear that the plaintiff will not prevail at the trial on the merits. Olcott v. Pendleton, 128 Conn. 292, 295 (1941).
It must be observed that the foundation for the claims for injunctive relief differ from the allegations underlying the causes of action for monetary damages. The basis for this motion for temporary injunction is that the easements acquired through eminent domain, are no longer needed by the town because newly obtained information gives rise to alternative means to accomplish the goals of the project. Specifically, the plaintiffs contend that the path of an existing, underground drainage pipe is now known to traverse the plaintiffs' property to a lesser extent than was originally believed by the town. The true location of this pipe, according to the plaintiffs, creates less need for the town to utilize the easements previously obtained.
The town argues, inter alia, that the failure of the plaintiffs to raise such issues in the condemnation proceedings precludes the plaintiffs from raising the issues of need and alternative measures by way of a later, temporary injunction. The court agrees with the town that the plaintiffs are collaterally estopped from attacking the use of the easements previously acquired through eminent domain.
In response to serious flooding of the residential neighborhood in which the plaintiffs' home is situated, the town sought to make beneficial changes to the course of a stream which runs through the neighborhood and across the plaintiffs' land. The town's proposed flood control plan required approval by the Army Corps of Engineers, the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, and the local inland wetlands agency. After years of effort, the town finally negotiated the administrative maze so that construction began in the spring of 2009.
On July 24, 2007, in contemplation of obtaining eventual approval of the project, the town obtained a temporary, construction easement and a permanent, use easement across the plaintiffs' land by way of a condemnation proceeding. Enfield v. Poirer, Superior Court, Tolland J.D., d.n. CV 07-4007581. The plaintiffs applied for a review of the statement of compensation on February 20, 2008, in that case. However, the town filed a special defense in that proceeding asserting that the application was untimely. On November 24, 2008, Judge Vacchelli granted summary judgment in favor of the town and against the Poiriers. Enfield v. Poirier, Superior Court, Tolland J.D., d.n. CV 07 — 4007581 (November 24, 2008). The present plaintiffs never appealed from this adverse judgment.
Issues which could have been raised in a condemnation proceeding are res judicata as to later, collateral hearings which attempt to alter the outcome of the earlier litigation. Laurel, Inc. v. Caldwell, 187 Conn. 171, 177 (1982); Branch v. Lewerenz, 75 Conn. 319, 324-25 (1902). That the issue was, in fact, not raised in the condemnation proceeding "is of no consequence." Id. Even subsequent collateral attacks which question the constitutionality of the original taking are barred by the effect of res judicata. Id.
Condemnation proceedings are an appropriate tribunal for determining the authority of the putative condemnor to take the condemnee's property. Greenwich Water Co. v. Adams, 145 Conn. 535, 537-38 (1958); or to resolve legal issues surrounding the "unreasonableness, abuse of power, discretion or bad faith in the actions of the town," Hall v. Weston, 167 Conn. 49, 59 (1974); or to assert the availability of alternatives or less onerous takings. Id.
The movants could have contested the accuracy of the town's flood control plans or questioned the necessity for or extent of the easements to be acquired in the condemnation proceedings. The specter of res judicata renders unlikely the plaintiffs' prospect for success on the merits of their claims for injunctive relief. The motion for a temporary injunction is, therefore, denied.