SUNSHINE UTILITIES EQUIPMENT, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
TREASURE COAST UTILITIES, INC., APPELLEE
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.
Sunshine Utilities appealed a judgment that its debt claim had been merged into a prior judgment based on the doctrine of merger. The court reversed, holding that the trial court erred by considering extrinsic evidence to determine merger, as the doctrine should be applied only based on the record of the prior action.
The trial court erred by considering extrinsic evidence to determine merger. The doctrine of merger, like res judicata and estoppel by judgment, can be applied only based on the record of the prior action and the issues framed by the pleadings in that action.
[1] The doctrine of merger extinguishes a cause of action on which a judgment is based and bars a subsequent action for the same cause.
[2] A prior judgment merges the debt or cause of action upon which the adjudication is predicated.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The doctrine of merger operates to extinguish a cause of action on which a judgment is based and bars a subsequent action for the same cause.”
Establishes the basic legal principle of merger doctrine
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSunshine Utilities brought suit against Treasure Coast Utilities for payment of two checks. The trial court determined that these two checks formed pa…
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 Merger Doctrine cases and more on FLexlaw
[*1097] HERSEY, Judge.
This is an appeal from a final judgment holding that the debt constituting the cause of action here had been merged into a judgment entered in earlier litigation.
The doctrine of merger operates to extinguish a cause of action on which a judgment is based and bars a subsequent action for the same cause. See Brinker v. Ludlow, 379 So. 2d 999 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). Thus, the debt or cause of action on which an adjudication is predicated is said to be merged into the final judgment.
In the instant case, the trial court determined that two checks at issue formed a portion of the debt upon which a previous judgment had been obtained and therefore were merged into that previous judgment. The record of the previous action, however, does not reflect that those checks constituted part of the cause of action. The complaint in that case specifically pled other debts and omitted any mention of the checks at issue here. Accordingly, the trial court’s adjudication of merger must have been predicated on extrinsic evidence.
The doctrine of merger is comparable to res judicata and estoppel by judgment. Res judicata applies only as to matters within the issues framed by the parties or tendered by the pleadings; that is, matters which were distinctly put in issue. Hay v. Salisbury, 92 Fla. 446, 109 So. 617 (1926). Likewise, it must appear that the points presented were determined in a prior action before the doctrine of estoppel by judgment can be applied. Youngblood v. Taylor, 89 So. 2d 503 (Fla.1956). In identifying the issues previously adjudicated in order to apply the doctrine of either res judi-cata or estoppel by judgment, the court may consider only the record of that prior action. The same principle logically applies to the doctrine of merger. Therefore, the trial court here erred by considering extrinsic evidence concerning the prior judgment.
Appellant adequately preserved this point for review by his objection to the admission of certain documentary evidence because the best evidence of the issues adjudicated in the earlier litigation was the record. Because this issue results in a disposition in favor of appellant, his additional points on appeal regarding the admissibility of evidence, the weight of the evidence, and the denial of a motion for rehearing are not addressed.
We reverse and remand for entry of a judgment in favor of appellant.
REVERSE and REMAND.
LETTS, C.J., and DELL, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Krug v. Meros, 468 So. 2d 299 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)…2 (Fla.1977); Field v. Field, 91 So. 2d 640 (Fla.1956); Youngblood v. Taylor, 89 So. 2d 503 (Fla.1956); Gordon; Lorf v. Indiana Insurance Co., 426 So. 2d 1225 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Sunshine Utilities Equipment, Inc. v. Treasure Coast Utilities, Inc., 421 So. 2d 1096 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); Stevens v. Len-Hal Realty, Inc., 403 So. 2d 507 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Sun State Roofing Co. v. Cotton States Mutual Insurance Co., 400 So. 2d 842 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981); Weigh Less for Life, Inc. v. Barnett Bank, 399 So. 2d 88 (Fla.…
-
Joleen Chrestensen v. Eurogest, Inc., 906 So. 2d 343 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)…of Merger is also applicable to this issue. "The doctrine of merger operates to extinguish a cause of action on which a judgment is based' and bars a subsequent action for the same cause.” Sunshine Utils. Equip., Inc. v. Treasure Coast Utils., Inc., 421 So. 2d 1096, 1097 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). Under this doctrine, "the debt or cause of action on which an adjudication is predicated is said to be merged into the final judgment.” Id. Thus, any action based upon the mortgage note in this case was extinguished by the…
-
Diamond R. Fertilizer Co., Inc. v. Lake Packing P'ship, 743 So. 2d 547 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)…ng the cause of- action on which a judgment is based, the doctrine of merger bars a subsequent action for the same cause. 32 Fla. Jur.2d Judgment and Decree § 116 (1994). See also Sunshine Utilities Equipment, Inc. v. Treasure Coast Utilities, Inc., 421 So. 2d 1096 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). The doctrine of merger can be applied only to matters “between parties to the litigation or their successors, conclusively settled by the decision of the court.” 15 Samuel Williston & Walter H.E. Jaeger, A Treatise on the Law of…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Am. Cont'l, Inc. v. Bloomberg, 89 So. 2d 503 (Fla. 1956)
- Hay v. Lyman A. Salisbury and Ruth Salisbury, 92 Fla. 446 (Fla. 1926)
- Crute v. State, 109 So. 617 (Ala. Ct. App. 1926)
- Brinker v. Ludlow, 379 So. 2d 999 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)