A Massachusetts appellate court held that when a building contractor seeks de novo review of a non-binding arbitrator's decision, such an "appeal" resembles an original trial court action more than an ordinary appeal; thus, he must bring all claims related to the arbitration action in the appeal.

In Booth v. Augis, No. 07-P-238, 2008 WL 2522587 (Mass. App. Ct. June 27, 2008), Booth, a building contractor, submitted his dispute with homeowner Augis to the Massachusetts home improvement private arbitration program. The arbitrator issued a non-binding award in favor of Booth, but Booth was unhappy with the amount of the award and appealed for a trial de novo under MASS. GEN. LAWS ch. 142A, § 4 (Booth I).

Augis moved to dismiss. While this motion was under consideration, Booth filed a second suit under the same set of facts that were at issue in the arbitration and Booth I, but Booth added another basis of liability under ch. 93A (Booth II). The court granted Augis's motion to dismiss Booth I, and granted Augis's motion to dismiss Booth II under the doctrine of claim preclusion, and Booth appealed.

On appeal, the Court affirmed the trial court's decisions, holding that Booth could have asserted the ch. 93A claims in Booth I, so he was barred from bringing Booth II. The Court held that the claim preclusion doctrine requires that all legal theories supporting a claim be presented when the opportunity is available, so Booth should have brought his ch. 93A claims in Booth I.

Booth argued that because Booth I was an appeal from an arbitration award, he could not have asserted the ch. 93A claims because they were not asserted in the arbitration.

The Court rejected Booth's argument, holding that nothing in the language of ch. 142A prohibited Booth from bringing his ch. 93A claims in his appeal. The Court noted that its interpretation furthered the legislature's goals of judicial economy and cost efficiency.

Furthermore, the Court held that although ch. 142A proceedings are considered an "appeal," they are de novo, so they resemble an "original" trial court action more than an ordinary appeal. Consequently, Booth had to bring his ch. 93A claims in Booth I.

In summary, the Court held that "[c]ontrary to Booth's assertions, he did have the opportunity to litigate his ch. 93A claims in the arbitration appeal," and thus "[t]he motion judge properly dismissed Booth II based upon the doctrine of claim preclusion."