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. 4th 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. 4th 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. 4th 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. 4th 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. 4th DCA 2017).
Please contact David Adelstein at email@example.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: