Opinion
16-P-1573
06-02-2017
Richard G. TATUM v. Albert L. CURTIS& another.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28
The plaintiff, Richard G. Tatum, filed this action to quiet title. A judge of the Land Court dismissed the complaint under the principles of res judicata, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and for failure to adhere to the requirement of Mass.R.Civ.P. 8, 365 Mass. 749 (1974). We affirm.
We consider the order of dismissal entered June 2, 2016, as a final judgment and we reach the merits. GTE Prod. Corp. v. Stewart, 421 Mass. 22, 24 n.3 (1995). Tatum cannot file a new action based on issues that have already been litigated. See Tatum vs. Curtis, Land Ct., No. 260787 (October 24, 2000). See also Kobrin v. Board of Registration in Med., 444 Mass. 837, 843 (2005), quoting from Heacock v. Heacock, 402 Mass. 21, 23 n.2 (1988) ("[I]ssue preclusion ‘prevents relitigation of an issue determined in an earlier action where the same issue arises in a later action, based on a different claim, between the same parties or their privies' "). No error appearing, and for substantially the reasons given by the Land Court judge in his decisional memorandum, we affirm. The case is remanded for entry of judgment in favor of the defendants.
We deny Tatum's request for appellate attorney's fees.
--------
So ordered.
Affirmed and remanded.