There are two similarly related legal doctrines known as collateral estoppel and res judicata.   The doctrines are designed to prevent a party from re-litigating either a prior issue (collateral estoppel) or claim (res judicata).  These doctrines are generally discussed below regarding the elements (in the case of collateral estoppel) or the identities (in the case of res judicata) required to support their application.   Keep in mind that these are nuanced legal doctrines and a party should consult with counsel to determine the application of these doctrines which are typically raised as an affirmative defense in a lawsuit.

Collateral Estoppel = Issue Preclusion

The doctrine of collateral estoppel is also generally known as issue preclusion. 

Collateral estoppel applies when the following five elements are satisfied: “(1) the identical issues were presented in a prior proceeding; (2) there was a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issues in the prior proceeding; (3) the issues in the prior litigation were a critical and necessary part of the prior determination; (4) the parties in the two proceedings were identical; and (5) the issues were actually litigated in the prior proceeding.”  Pearce v. Sandler, 219 So.3d 961, 965 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) quoting Topps v. State, 865 So.2d 1253, 1255 (Fla. 2004).  

When these elements are satisfied, “[c]ollateral estoppel precludes re-litigating an issue where the same issue has been fully litigated by the parties or their privies, and a final decision has been rendered by a court.”  Id. quoting Mtge. Elec. Registration Sys., Inc. v. Badra, 991 So.2d 1037, 1039 (Fla. 4^th DCA 2008).   The underlined phraseology “or their privies” refers to one who is in privity with a party to a lawsuit.  “To be in privity with one who is a party to a lawsuit, or for one to have been virtually represented by one who is a party to a lawsuit, one must have an interest in the action such that she will be bound by the final judgment as if she were a party.”  Pearce, 219 So.3d at 965.

A trial court’s ruling regarding the application of collateral estoppel is reviewed under a de novo standard of appellate review.   PNC Bank, Nat. Ass’n v. Inlet Village Condominium Ass’n, Inc., 204 So.3d 97 (Fla. 4^th DCA 2016).

Res Judicata = Claim Preclusion

The doctrine of res judicata is also generally known as claim preclusion.

Res judicata applies when the following four identities are satisfied: “(1) identity of the thing sued for; (2) identity of the cause of action; (3) identity of persons and parties to the action; and (4) identity of the quality of the persons for or against whom the claim is made.”  Professional Roofing and Sales, Inc. v. Flemmings, 138 So.3d 524, 527 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) quoting Topps v. State, 865 So.2d 1253, 1255 (Fla. 2004).

An identity of the cause of action refers to “whether the facts or evidence necessary to maintain the suit are the same in both actions.”  Tyson v. Viacom, Inc., 890 So.2d 1205, 1209 (Fla. 4^th DCA 2005) quoting Albrecht v. State, 444 So.2d 8, 12 (Fla. 1984).   

Another way to consider res judicata has been stated as follows: “A judgment on the merits rendered in a former suit between the same parties or their privies, upon the same cause of action, by a court of competent jurisdiction, is conclusive not only as to every matter which was offered and received to sustain or defeat the claim, but as to every other matter which might with propriety have been litigated determined in that action.”  Tyson, 890 So.2d at 1209 quoting Huff Groves Trust v. Caulkins Indiantown Citrus Co., 810 So.2d 1049, 1050 (Fla. 4^th DCA 2002). 

A trial court’s ruling regarding the application of res judicata is also reviewed under a de novo standard of appellate review.  Philadelphia Financial Management of San Francisco, LLC v. DJSP Enterprises, Inc., 227 So.3d 612 (Fla. 4^th DCA 2017). 

Please contact David Adelstein at dadelstein@gmail.com or (954) 361-4720 if you have questions or would like more information regarding this article. You can follow David Adelstein on Twitter @DavidAdelstein1.

Please follow and like us:

Preserving an objection for appeal.  Preserving an objection for appeal.  Preserving an objection for appeal.  Repeat again and again, because this is important.  The lack of preservation of an objection is demonstrated in a criminal trial, Pierre v. Florida,  43 Fla.L.Weekly D1110b (Fla. 4th DCA 2018), which involved man wearing a ski-mask attempting to kill his ex-wife.  Of course, his ex-wife and son saw his face, but there was other evidence to support the attempted murder.   The jury found that the man was guilty of attempted murder.

An issue on appeal dealt with the scope of an expert’s testimony that tied the defendant to the scene of the crime.  Prior to the expert’s trial testimony, the defense argued that the prosecution’s expert was going to be rendering an opinion outside of his expertise as demonstrated by prior deposition testimony.  The defense argued to exclude this testimony.   The judge held that the prosecution needed to lay the proper predicate (foundation) for the expert’s opinion, and he will entertain an objection at a later time.  The prosecution’s expert rendered the opinion and the defense never renewed the objection.  Because the defense never renewed this objection and there was never a definitive ruling on the motion to exclude the testimony, the defense never preserved this issue for appeal. Pierre, supra (“But because Pierre [defendant] then failed to renew his objection during Silvia’s [prosecution’s expert] testimony or obtain a ruling on his earlier motion to exclude the testimony, this argument was not preserved for review either.”).  Moreover, the appellate court held that the trial court permitting this opinion, even if the trial court was wrong, was not a fundamental error (i.e., it was harmless error) because the jury could have convicted the defendant based on eyewitness testimony alone.

Remember, it is important to preserve an objection for appeal, particularly if it will be the basis of a potential appeal. 

Please contact David Adelstein at dadelstein@gmail.com or (954) 361-4720 if you have questions or would like more information regarding this article. You can follow David Adelstein on Twitter @DavidAdelstein1.

Please follow and like us:

Here is a case that may give associations some degree of consternation.  I think it should because it supports permanent injunctive relief against an association to comply with its governing documents when managing or maintaining a surface water management system / stormwater management system.   This case, discussed below, would extend beyond a surface water management system to any covenant in the governing documents.  

In Coconut Creek Homeowner’s Association, Inc. v. Gonzalez,  43 Fla.L.Weekly D1045a (Fla. 4th DCA 2018), a homeowner sued her homeowner’s association for failing to manage the association’s surface water management system.  The homeowner sued the association for breach of the governing documents (Declaration, bylaws, etc.) and for a permanent / mandatory injunction to compel the association to comply with its governing documents to fix the swales and drainage system (common elements owned by the association).   The lack of management of the surface water management system caused flooding problems and damage to the homeowner’s home.

The jury found that the association breached its governing documents in failing to manage the surface water management system, but awarded the homeowner $0 caused by the breach associated with her claimed damages.  But, the trial court, as affirmed by the appellate court, granted a mandatory / permanent injunction against the association to enforce restrictive covenants in the governing documents. Specifically, the injunctive relief was issued to order the association to fix the swales and drainage system and comply with its governing documents.  

Now, the association perhaps thought this was not all that bad because it did not owe the homeowner any monetary damages based on the jury’s verdict of $0.  However, the appellate court found that because the homeowner prevailed on the significant issues of her case, she is entitled to her attorney’s fees and costs.  Thus, a mandatory / permanent injunction is issued against the association requiring it to comply with the governing documents and it is liable for the homeowner’s attorney’s fees and costs, which are likely significant after a trial.  Please check out this article for more information relating to the attorney’s fees aspect of this case. 

If you live in a community governed by an association (whether a homeowner’s association or condominium association), make sure you seek counsel that appreciates the issues associated with your governing documents.  And, an association needs to likewise consider the issues so it understands its responsibilities under the governing documents and potential outcomes associated with owner disputes.

Please contact David Adelstein at dadelstein@gmail.com or (954) 361-4720 if you have questions or would like more information regarding this article. You can follow David Adelstein on Twitter @DavidAdelstein1.

Please follow and like us:

I recently discussed a doctrine that applies in negligence cases known as the undertaker’s doctrine.  Some may also call this the no good deed goes unpunished doctrine.  Just kidding; but, this undertaker’s doctrine maintains that if you undertake a service, i.e., a good deed, you must do so with reasonable care as you assumed a duty to prevent the beneficiary of that service from harm.  

For instance, a tenant sued the owner of the condominium he (and his family) was renting and his real estate agent for water intrusion and mold problems in the unit.  The tenant claimed the real estate agent was negligent because the agent agreed to fix the problems with the unit but neglected to do so.  This is where the undertaker’s doctrine comes into play–the agreement to undertake a service exposed the real estate agent to a duty to use reasonable care with that service.  

The owner of the unit settled with the tenant for $82,000 resulting in a final judgment against the owner.  The real estate agent argued that the negligence claim against him should be deemed moot in light of this settlement since the agent was being sued for the same damages.  The appellate court disagreed because there was nothing in the record to reflect that the settlement amount with the owner included ALL of the tenant’s damages.

“Mid-litigation monetary settlements are often less than the total amount of damages that the plaintiff was claiming. Each side gives up something when they settle, including some of the plaintiff’s potential monetary damages award.”  Muchnick v. Goihman, 43 Fla.L.Weekly D986b (Fla. 3d DCA 2018).   The settlement amount would serve as a set-off from any judgment amount or verdict awarded against the agent to avoid any windfall to the tenant; however, the agent does not get to put the cart before the horse and argue the case against him is moot because the plaintiff settled with the co-defendant. 

Please contact David Adelstein at dadelstein@gmail.com or (954) 361-4720 if you have questions or would like more information regarding this article. You can follow David Adelstein on Twitter @DavidAdelstein1.

Please follow and like us: