Lawrence A. Kruckenberg v. Paul S. Harvey

Notable Items:

Plaintiff: Lawrence A. Kruckenberg
Defendant: Paul S. Harvey
Venue: Supreme Court of Wisconsion

Issue(s) Beofore the Court:

Does the doctrine of claim preclusion (res judicata) bar the plaintiff's action.

Plaintiff's Claim(s):

Not the same transaction as the 1982 claim, and he should not be barred by the doctrine of claim preclusion.

... for trespass and conversion (the cutting and taking of trees),
failure to provide lateral support (failing to plant rye grass continually to prevent erosion), and
a declaratory judgement regarding the location of the boundary line between their properties.

Defendant's Claim(s):

doctrine of preclusion prohibits(?) the instant case.

Holding(s) and Disposition:

Held: No. ... when a prior action does not explicitly determine the location of the boundary line between the properties, the doctrine of claim preclusion will not bar a later declaratory judgement action to determine the location of the boundary line...
Disposition: Accordingly, we reverse the decision of the court of appeals and remand the cause to the circuit court for proceedings not inconsistent with this decision.

Material Facts:

A full recounting of the facts is available below
... claim preclusion arises from a lawsuit brought by Donald A. Czyzewski, the plaintiff's predecessor in title, against the defendant in 1982.
On April 6th, 1983, ... the circuit court entered an order dismissing Czyzewski suit on its merits.
Czyzewski's sale of his parcel to the plaintiff was completed after the 1982 lawsuit was dismissed, and the plaintiff claims he did not know about the lawsuit.
The plaintiff had his land surveyed in 2000 and learned that the "line fence" was not on the boundary line; the fence was 16 feet north of his property's southern boundary.
... defendant decided [in 2001] to harvest some trees on the south side of the fence, according to the 2000 survey, the trees were on the plaintiff's property.
The plaintiff asked the defendant not to cut the trees.
... plaintiff, armed with his new survey, sued the defendant for trespass and conversion (cutting and taking of the trees), failure to provide lateral support (failing to plant rye grass continually to prevent erosion), and a declaratory judgement regarding the location of the boundary line between their properties.

Procedural History:

The prior action brought by the the plaintiff's predecessor in title against the defendant ... ended in a judgement of dismissal on the merits.
The circuit court granted summary judgement in the defendant's favor and dismissed the action. [res judicata]
... court of appeals affirmed the circuit court's judgement of dismissal
This court grants summary judgement using the same methodology as the circuit court....
Accordingly, we reverse the decision of the court of appeals and remand the cause to the circuit court for proceedings not inconsistent with this decision.

Rationale

Majority Opinion

The only question is one of law, ... claim preclusion.
... the plaintiff's 2001 lawsuit should proceed under a narrow exception to the doctrine of claim preclusion.
special circumstances: apparent invalidity of a continuing restraint or condition having a vital relation to personal liberty or the failure of the prior litigation to yield a coherent disposition of the controversy.
When an action between the parties or their privies does not explicitly determine the location of a boundary line, the doctrine of claim preclusion will not bar a future declaratory judgement to determine the proper location of the boundary line.
The boundary line can be dtermined in the present case, without repeasting prior litigation.
Accordingly, we reverse the decision of the court of appeals and remand the cause to the circuit court for proceedings not inconsistent with this decision.
A full description of the rationale is available below

Full Recounting of Facts

... claim preclusion arises from a lawsuit brought by Donald A. Czyzewski, the plaintiff's predecessor in title, against the defendant in 1982.
... the defendant dug a ditch along the northern boundary of his property, ... causing Czyzewski's soils and trees to collapse, causing the line fence to collapse ... and causing the water level of Czyzewski's pond to subside.
... [Czyzewski] alleged that the defendant breached a duty of lateral support... requested: 1) restoration of the line fence; 2) restoration of the eroded portion ...; 3) restoration of the water level; 4) $10,000.
... defendant denied all other allegations of the complaint.
On April 6th, 1983, ... the circuit court entered an order dismissing Czyzewski suit on its merits.
... defendant agreed to pay Czyzewski $1,500 and plant rye grass along the drainage ditch to prevent erosion.
Czyzewski's sale of his parcel to the plaintiff was completed after the 1982 lawsuit was dismissed, and the plaintiff claims he did not know about the lawsuit.
The plaintiff had his land surveyed in 2000 and learned that the "line fence" was not on the boundary line; the fence was 16 feet north of his property's southern boundary.
... defendant decided [in 2001] to harvest some trees on the south side of the fence, according to the 2000 survey, the trees were on the plaintiff's property.
The plaintiff asked the defendant not to cut the trees.
... plaintiff, armed with his new survey, sued the defendant for trespass and conversion (cutting and taking of the trees), failure to provide lateral support (failing to plant rye grass continually to prevent erosion), and a declaratory judgement regarding the location of the boundary line between their properties.
The circuit court granted summary judgement in the defendant's favor and dismissed the action.
The circuit court ruled that the plaintiff could not challenge the location of the line fence as not being the boundary line because of the doctrine of claim preclusion.
The circuit court found that the line fence was an issue in the 1982 lawsuit and in effect placed the boundary line at the fence line.
... lateral support was litigated in 1982 and that the doctrine of claim preclusion therefore barred this court ....
... court of appeals affirmed the circuit court's judgement of dismissal
This court grants summary judgement using the same methodology as the circuit court....
A list of the material facts is available above

Majority Full Argument

In the present case no genuine issue of material fact exists.
The only question is one of law, ... claim preclusion.
... we must determine the application of the doctrine of claim preclusion....
The doctrine of claim preclusion provides that a final judgement on the merits in one action bars parties from relitigating any claim that arises out of the same relevant facts, transactions, or occurrances....
When the doctrine of claim preclusion is applied, a final judgement on the merits will ordinarily bar all matters "which were litigated or which might have been litigated in the former proceedings."
In Wisconsin, the doctrine of claim preclusion has three elements:
1. "identity between the parties or their privies in the prior and present suits [not in dispute],
2. prior litigation resulted in a final judgement on the merits by a court with jurisdiction [not in dispute], and
3. identity of the cause of action in the two suits..."
The parties' disagreement focuses on the third element of the doctrine of claim preclusion....
... doctrine of claim preclusion ... extinguishes all rights to remedies against a defendant with respect to all or any part of the transaction....
"transaction" ... whether the facts are related in time, space, origin, or movtivation....
The goal of the transactional approach is to see the claim in factual terms asnd to make a claim coterminous with the transaction, .... notes a common nucleus of operative facts....
... the legal theories, remedies sought, and evidence used may be different between the first and second actions....
... looks to see if the claim asserted in the second action should ahve been presented for decision in the earlier action, ....
... the events giving rise to the two actions do not appear part of the same transaction, as they are separated in time, space, origin, and motivation....
... the aggregate operative facts in both the 1982 and 2001 clams are the same, namely the defendant's conduct in relation to the location of the boundary line. [?? ditch on one side, trees on the other...assuming defendant informed of re-survey]
The facts needed to establish the location of the boundary line between the plaintiff's and defendant's properties were in existence in 1982. [no new evidence allowed? new knowledge of old facts.]
Even though the 1982 litigation did not determine the boundary line, the two lawsuits have such a measure of identity of claims that a judgement in the second in favor of the plaintiff would appear to impair the rights or interests established in the first judgement.
... the plaintiff's 2001 lawsuit should proceed under a narrow exception to the doctrine of claim preclusion.
special circumstanaces: apparent invalidity of a continuing restraint or condition having a vital relation to personal liberty or the failure of the prior litigation to yield a coherent disposition of the controversy. [Restatement (Second) of Judgements 26(1)(f)]
When an action between the parties or their privies does not explicitly determine the location of a boundary line, the doctrine of claim preclusion will not bar a future declaratory judgement to determine the proper location of the boundary line.
The boundary line can be dtermined in the present case, without repeasting prior litigation.
Lastly strict application of the doctrine of claim preclusion in the present case places process over truth.
... be more concerned with deciding the location of the boundary line than with strictly applying the doctrine of claim preclusion.
... the 1982 action "failed to yield a coherent disposition of the controversey" and "has left the parties not in a state of repose but in an unstable and intolerable condition...."
... when a prior action does not explicitly determine the location of the boundary line between the properties, the doctrine of claim preclusion will not bar a later declaratory judgement action to determine the location of the boundary line...
Accordingly, we reverse the decision of the court of appeals and remand the cause to the circuit court for proceedings not inconsistent with this decision.
The core of the rationale is available above