Murray v. Zullo, 20 Mass. L. Rptr. 293 (2005)

Citation: Murray v. Zullo, 20 Mass. L. Rptr. 293 (2005)
Parent Document: Murray v. Zullo, 20 Mass. L. Rptr. 293 (2005)
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts (state)
Effective Date: 2005-12-20
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8356005/murray-v-zullo/ ↗

Full Text

1,226 chars

The guiding principle here is that Murray is precluded from litigating not only those claims that were actually decided in the summary process action, but also those that could have been brought in that action. See Charlette v. Charlette Bros. Foundry, Inc., 59 Mass.App.Ct. 34, 44 (2003) (“claim preclusion will apply even though a party is prepared in a second action to present different evidence or legal theories to support his claim or seeks different remedies”). By entering ajudgment for the Zullos in the summary process action, the Natick District Court judge necessarily determined that the Zullos had properly terminated the tenancy and were entitled to gain possession of the Apartment. Although Murray did not assert any counterclaims or affirmative defenses (so that the district judge would not necessarily have made any findings as to the condition of the Apartment, for example), the summary process action was the proceeding in which to raise these issues. Because the facts Murray now asserts in support of Counts I and II of her claim all grew out of the same transaction or occurrence (namely, the tenancy), the district court’s decision prevents her from litigating those claims later in this new forum.

Other Sections in This Document (28)

Full Text