Hiawatha Lane Update: Lawsuit Continues

Artistic rendering of the courtyard at the center of the three buildings by The Monroe Partnership Architects.

The lawsuit filed by three Saugatuck residents living in homes in the Hiawatha Lane neighborhood against the developer who has been seeking to build a 157 unit housing complex for many years received new life on Friday when counsel for the Plaintiffs filed a Motion To Reargue/Reconsider the judgment entered by the court on May 31, 2022. In that ruling Judge Marshall Berger found in favor of Summit Saugatuck, LLC on cross motions for summary judgment which were argued in court in February (see WestportLocal reporting June 1, 2022 https://westportlocal.com/news/hiawatha-lane-residents-lawsuit-decided?rq=Hiawatha%20). The granting of summary judgement eliminates the need for a trial as it holds that "… there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law…"

The suit filed in September 2021 from which one plaintiff has withdrawn has prevented the developer from proceeding with construction and that delay will continue until the controversy has been finally decided.

The core issue is whether or not "a common uniform development plan exists as to certain land in Westport". In his May 31st memorandum of decision Judge Berger found that no such common plan exists; "…the undisputed facts demonstrate no question of fact that a uniform common plan does not exist in this case"

The reason this issue is paramount is that plaintiffs argue that the common plan they allege exists would preclude the multi-family development envisioned by Summit and that only single family homes may be built on the properties at issue. Summit obviously disagrees.

Motions for re-argument  and reconsideration are not often filed and usually face an uphill battle as the moving party is asking the court to essentially admit the court erred or missed vital facts or relevant law in making it's ruling. One common hurdle is the second bite of the apple doctrine which holds that a "motion to reargue is not to be used as an opportunity to have a second bite of the apple or to present additional cases or briefs which could have been presented at the time of the original argument" .

The plaintiffs have filed a fifteen page pleading raising highly technical issues which contest certain applications of law in several areas including inheritance law which plaintiff maintains the court failed to properly apply. They argue that the court's conclusion "…the estate [of the original owner] was the only entity that held title to all of the lots"  was improper. Their motion further claims that the court misconstrued the law which led to the finding that there was no common plan which would support plaintiff's claim that the deeds only allow for single family homes.

Going forward the Defendant will likely file an objection to the motion and which the court will either rule upon or probably hold a hearing before making it's ruling. This can add weeks or even months to the life of this case after which the party that receives an adverse ruling can appeal that ruling and if that is the Plaintiff, also the summary judgment ruling on May 15th. Appeals can often take up to a year or longer which means that unforeseen circumstances not withstanding we may not be seeing construction of the 157 unit complex any time soon