Preclusion Flashcards
A woman sued her ex-husband for installments under their divorce settlement agreement. The ex-husband defended the suit on the ground that the ex-wife was in breach of the agreement, but the court granted judgment for the ex-wife. Now, the ex-wife is suing him for other installments due under the agreement. The ex-husband raised the defense that the agreement was void and illegal because of fraud perpetrated by his ex-wife at the time the agreement was signed. The ex-wife moves to strike her ex-husband’s defense, claiming issue preclusion.
Should the court grant the motion?
No, because the issue was never litigated. Generally, issues actually litigated between the parties are binding on them in subsequent actions concerning the same claim. If the second suit involves a different claim, the first judgment may be invoked as to all matters actually litigated and determined the first action, provided that the findings were essential to the first judgment.
Here, the fraud issue was not actually litigated and thus it can be raised with respect to later installments.
A pedestrian was injured in an auto accident caused by a driver. The pedestrian’s injuries included a broken nose and a broken toe. Not sure of the strength of her case, she sued the driver only for the injuries to her nose. She was awarded $15,000 in damages. Encouraged by this success, she now wishes to sue the driver for the injuries to her toe.
May she sue the driver again?
The pedestrian may not sue the driver again because of merger. Merger occurs when the plaintiff wins; her cause of action is said to “merge” into the judgment such that she cannot relitigate the cause of action later. The court would hold that all of the personal injuries received by the pedestrian in one accident constitute a single cause of action, and that claim preclusion principles forbid relitigation.
A landlord brought suit against a tenant in federal court for overdue rent payments on a commercial lease. The landlord sought to recover on the six rent installments that were past due and unpaid at the time of the suit. The landlord won the case, and judgment was entered in her favor. The lease has an acceleration clause that states that all future rent payments become due if the tenant falls behind three months or more. The landlord now files suit against the tenant for the remaining rent payments. The tenant moves to dismiss, asserting that the landlord’s claim is barred by claim preclusion (res judicata) principles.
Should the tenant’s motion to dismiss be granted?
The plaintiff’s suit is unlikely to be successful because the two suits arise out of the same transaction or occurrence. Claim preclusion (res judicata) requires that (i) a valid, final judgment on the merits was entered in the first case; (ii) the cases were brought by the same claimant against the same defendant; and (iii) the same cause of action is involved in the later lawsuit.
Generally, a claimant is required to assert all causes of action arising out of the same transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the claim. In the situation of installment payments, the claimant is required to sue on all installments due at the time of the suit. If there is an acceleration clause, the claimant must sue for all installments. Here, the plaintiff should have sued for all installments in the first lawsuit. Because she did not, her second suit is barred by claim preclusion.
