REVELS FORD TRACTOR CO., INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
JOHN MEARES, DOROTHY MEARES AND MEARES INDIAN ROCKS LANDSCAPING, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the trial court erred in dismissing the amended complaint with prejudice because the prior actions did not involve the same subject matter or require compulsory counterclaims.
[1] Res judicata does not apply when there is no identity of causes of action and of the items sued for between prior and subsequent litigation.
[2] A claim for payment on a tractor sale is not barred by prior litigation concerning unrelated parts, services, and repairs.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRevels Ford Tractor Co. sued for the down payment on a tractor. Prior suits involved payment for parts/services and a separate truck sale/financing, w…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Identity Of Cause Of Action cases and more on FLexlaw
CAMPBELL, Judge.
Revels Ford Tractor Co., Inc. appeals an order dismissing its amended complaint with prejudice. In its order of dismissal, the trial court referred to two earlier suits saying that “the matters sued on in the instant action were or should have been litigated in these prior actions.”
Revels sued the Meares and Meares Indian Rocks Landscaping, Inc. in this action for the down payment on a tractor sold to them by Revels in April, 1978. Earlier, Revels had sued Meares for payment for parts, services, and repairs performed from November, 1977, through June 20, 1978. Borg-Warner Acceptance Corporation, Revels’ assignor, had also sued Mr. and Mrs. Meares on an installment sales contract and security agreement for a truck and trailer that Revels sold to Meares in March, 1978. The parties eventually settled that case in favor of Borg-Warner. After examining the record and even after indulging in the presumption of correctness that attaches to proceedings in a lower court, we cannot anywhere determine that the subject matter of the dismissed complaint was ever litigated in the prior proceedings. The suit for payment for parts, services, and repairs performed nowhere mentions the sale of a tractor and was apparently unconnected with the tractor. The sale of the tractor and the sale of the truck and trailer occurred at different times, involved different financing arrangements, arose from separate contracts, and concerned different goods.
Therefore, there is not that identity of causes of action and of the items sued for sufficient to trig ger an application of res judicata. Cole v.
First Development Corp. of America, 339 So. 2d 1130 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976); 32 Fla. Jur.2d Judgments & Decrees § 107 (1981). Neither do we find that the subject matter of the dismissed complaint should have required a compulsory counterclaim in the earlier proceedings. That being the case, the trial court erred in dismissing Revels’ amended complaint with prejudice.
Accordingly, we reverse that order so that Revels’ claim may be considered on the merits.
SCHEB, A. C. J., and SCHOONOVER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cason v. Fla. Favorite Fertilizer, Inc., 547 So. 2d 703 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)…e. Therefore, the subject matter at issue in the Polk suit is distinct from that to be litigated in the Hillsborough action, and the result in one lawsuit will not constitute res judicata as to the other. See Revels Ford Tractor Co., Inc. v. Meares, 419 So. 2d 1190 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982). Further, even if the Polk County causes of action had arisen from the same transaction or occurrence as the Hillsbor-ough suit, the result in this case would not be different. Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.170(a) provides th…
-
Paul & Ellen Thomson v. State, 493 So. 2d 1032 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)…lication and obviously did not exist when the first application was considered. Since an adjudication is not conclusive with regard to questions that could not be adjudicated in the action in which it was rendered, Revels Ford Tractor Co. v. Meares, 419 So. 2d 1190 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); 32 Fla.Jur.2d, Judgments and Decrees, § 118, the new environmental study and the Secretary’s new concern for nonexistent seagrass beds constituted “new facts, changed conditions and additional submissions,” which brought the sec…
Authorities Cited
- Cole v. First Dev. Corp. OF Am., 339 So. 2d 1130 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976)