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.
22. Is the court likely to grant the neighbor's motion to dismiss?
The homeowner sold her property to a buyer. The buyer sued the neighbor in a jurisdictionally valid lawsuit in state court in State B, challenging the enforceability of the neighbor's easement on the same grounds that the homeowner had previously brought in the first suit. The neighbor filed a motion to dismiss the buyer's lawsuit on preclusion grounds.
A homeowner filed a jurisdictionally valid lawsuit against a neighbor in state court in State A to quiet title on an acre of land over which they both claim ownership. The action included the homeowner's challenge to an easement on the homeowner's property, to which the neighbor claimed legal rights. Pursuant to a special verdict, a jury found the neighbor's easement legally enforceable.
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
Before merger or bar apply, it must be shown that:
(i) the earlier judgment is a valid, final judgment «on the merits»;
(ii) the cases are brought by the same claimant against the same defendant — it is not enough that the same litigants were also parties in the previous case (it must be the same configuration of parties); AND
(iii) the same cause of action or claim is involved in the later lawsuit.
Claim and issue preclusion generally bind only persons who were parties to the original action, not «strangers» to the original action. However, there are exceptions to this general rule. If someone is closely linked enough to a party in the original action that there is a substantive legal relationship between them, that person may be bound by the first result for preclusive purposes, just as if that person had been a party in the original action. The substantive legal relationship puts them in privity with each other, which allows the non-party to be bound by the original action.
A judgment binds the plaintiff or defendant (or their privies) in subsequent actions on different causes of action between them (or their privies) as to issues actually litigated and essential to the judgment in the first action. This conclusive effect of the first judgment is called issue preclusion (or collateral estoppel).
Note that issue preclusion is narrower than claim preclusion. Claim preclusion (res judicata) focuses on the scope of a cause of action and bars the claimant from asserting a second case.
Issue preclusion, in contrast, focuses on the narrower issue that was litigated and determined in the first case, and that is relevant in the second case. For issue preclusion to apply, the judgment must have been final, the issue actually litigated, and it must have been essential to the judgment. Issue preclusion is only asserted AGAINST someone who was a party (or in privity with a party) to the previous case. Issue preclusion is only asserted BY someone who was a party (or in privity with a party) in the previous case.
A is correct. For a specific issue to be subject to issue preclusion, it must be the same as the one that was fully and fairly litigated in the first action. The issue must have been actually decided by the first court, and the first court's decision must have been necessary to the outcome of the first suit. In most cases, the identity of the parties, or those in privity to the parties, must be the same as in the first lawsuit.
In this question, the buyer and the homeowner are in privity with each other as successive owners of the same property. Thus, the buyer will be bound by the decision on the enforceability of the easement from the prior lawsuit because all other requirements for issue preclusion have been met.
B is incorrect. Claim preclusion prevents a claim from being relitigated when it has already been fully heard in a previous case. However, it is not applicable here. In this question, the claim of the previous lawsuit was a quiet title action, which contained the issue of the validity of the easement. The buyer is not bringing the exact same claim as the prior lawsuit trying to relitigate the validity of the easement, so claim preclusion would not prevent the buyer's lawsuit.
C is incorrect. As explained above, the fact that the buyer was not a named party in the prior litigation does not necessarily mean claim or issue preclusion will not apply. Because there is privity between the buyer and homeowner, the buyer will be precluded from bringing the same litigation a second time on the issue of the validity of the easement.
D is incorrect. The Full Faith and Credit Clause (U.S. Const. Art. IV § 1) binds states to ensure that they give full effect to the judgment of courts in other states.