Full access allows:
- Solve all tests online without limits;
- Remove all advertisements on website;
- Adding questions to favorite list;
- Save learning progress;
- Save results of practice exams;
- Watching all wrong answered questions.
15. Is the court likely to grant the man's motion for summary judgment?
The man then sued the buyer in state court, seeking a declaration that the implied easement on the buyer's property was valid. The man's attorney filed a motion for summary judgment.
A neighbor sued a man in state court, challenging the man's use of an implied easement on the neighbor's property. The neighbor claimed the implied easement was invalid. The state court found for the man, holding that the easement was valid on the grounds of longstanding use. Thereafter, the neighbor sold the property to a buyer. The buyer refused to recognize the easement.
Comments (0)
There are no comments at the moment. If you found an error or think question is incorrect, tell everyone about it
Only signed in users can write comments
Signin
Issue preclusion, also known as collateral estoppel, prevents a particular issue from being relitigated when it has already been fully heard in a previous case. For an issue to be subject to issue preclusion, the issue must be the same as the one fully and fairly litigated in the first action. The first court must have decided the issue, and the first court's decision must have been necessary to the outcome of the first suit. Usually, only those who were parties or their privies in the first action will be precluded from relitigating an issue.
The principles of issue preclusion applied when BOTH of the parties in the second lawsuit were present in the first lawsuit or when there is privity between a party in the first lawsuit and a party in the second lawsuit.
C is correct. The issue here is the validity of the implied easement, which was fully and fairly litigated in the first action, where the court issued a judgment that was necessary to the outcome of the suit. As such, the basic elements of issue preclusion are satisfied. Only parties and their privies involved in the first action are subject to issue preclusion. Because the neighbor and buyer were in privity with each other as successive owners of the same property, the buyer will be bound by issue preclusion even though he was not a named party in the first lawsuit and will not be able to relitigate the issue of the easement's validity.
As a result, the court should grant the man's summary judgment motion, finding in his favor on the implied easement based on the applicability of issue preclusion.
A is incorrect. Claim preclusion (res judicata) applies only if the same claimant brings the earlier case and the latter case against the same defendant. It is not sufficient for claim preclusion that the same litigants were also parties and privies in the first case; like they are here, the parties must have been in the same configuration as in the prior lawsuit.
In this question, the neighbor sued the man in the first action, and then the man sued the buyer in the second action. Because the configuration of the parties in the second suit does not match the first, claim preclusion does not apply. Waiver, here, is not relevant.
B is incorrect. As explained above, the parties must be the same in the first suit and second suit for preclusion to apply. However, a party that is in privity with the defendant of the first suit will be bound by any preclusive effects. Here, the buyer is in privity with the neighbor, meaning he will be bound by the preclusive effects of the first lawsuit.
D is incorrect. Claim preclusion, also known as res judicata, requires the same configuration of the parties (same plaintiff suing same defendant). Again, here, the configuration of the parties in the first lawsuit differs from the second lawsuit (neighbor v. man and then man v. buyer). Therefore, claim preclusion, or res judicata, is inapplicable.