JEAN PIERRE RAJSFUS, APPELLANT,
v.
ANNE TEXIER FABRI, INDIVIDUALLY, AND SOFRAM, U.S.A., 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.
Rajsfus appeals the dismissal of his second lawsuit against Fabri and Sofram on a dishonored check, arguing the trial court erroneously applied res judicata. The court reversed, holding that separate dishonored instruments constitute separate causes of action that accrue at different times, and therefore res judicata does not bar the second suit.
Res judicata does not apply because the two lawsuits involve different causes of action based on separate instruments that accrued at different times. Although both suits relate to the same underlying $24,200 indebtedness, each dishonored instrument creates a separate cause of action under the Uniform Commercial Code, and each cause of action accrues upon demand following dishonor of that particular instrument.
[1] Res judicata requires identity of the thing, the cause of action, the parties, and the quality of the person for or against whom the claim is made.
[2] The dishonor of each separate negotiable instrument creates a separate cause of action.
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 intelligence“there are four conditions peculiar to res judicata: identity of the thing, the cause of action, the parties, and the quality of the person for or against whom the claim is made.”
Establishes the required elements for res judicata to apply
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn December 15, 1986, Rajsfus lent $24,200 to Sofram and Fabri (who guaranteed the debt). Sofram's first $5,000 check cleared, but subsequent checks f…
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 Uniform Commercial Code cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Rajsfus appeals from an order dismissing his complaint as barred by res judicata. For the reasons which follow, we reverse.
On December 15, 1986, Jean Pierre Rajsfus lent $24,200 to Sofram, U.S.A., and Ann Texier Fabri. Fabri signed a guaranty which listed by check number the four checks Sofram would execute to satisfy its indebtedness.
Sofram’s first check to Rajsfus for $5,000 was presented and honored, reducing its indebtedness to $19,200. Sofram’s subsequent checks for $5,000 and for $9,200 were returned for insufficient funds. Rajsfus sent Fabri notices of dishonor and, on May 5, 1987, Rajsfus sued Fabri and Sofram on the two dishonored instruments. The court entered a default on June 1, 1987, and entered a final judgment in favor of Rajsfus on October 16, 1987, for $14,200, the sum of the two dishonored checks, plus costs and attorney’s fees. Sofram satisfied that judgment.
On June 24, 1987, another check executed by Sofram to Rajsfus for $5,000 was returned because Fabri had stopped payment. On November 19, 1987, Rajsfus sued on that instrument and unsuccessfully moved to consolidate that suit with the earlier action on the dishonored instruments. The trial court dismissed the November, 1987, action on the ground of res judicata.
The trial court erred in dismissing the second action. Res judicata requires four identities between the former and subsequent litigation. “[Tjhere are four conditions peculiar to res judicata: identity of the thing, the cause of action, the parties, and the quality of the person for or against whom the claim is made.” Avant v. Hammond Jones, Inc., 79 So. 2d 423 (Fla.1955).
Here, the causes of action were different in each lawsuit. Although both suits mentioned the underlying indebtedness of $24,-200 and Fabri’s guaranty, the actual causes of action were based on separate instruments — separate causes of action which accrued at different times.
Under the Uniform Commercial Code, an action on a dishonored instrument may be maintained on either the instrument or the underlying obligation. Section 673. 802(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1987). Rajsfus elected to sue on the instruments. The dishonor of each instrument created a separate cause of action. Each cause of action accrued upon demand following dishonor of the instrument. Section 673.122(3), Florida Statutes (1987).
Rajsfus’ cause of action on the $5,000 check on which Sofram had stopped payment did not accrue until June 24, 1987, when he received notice of the stop payment order, after the trial court had entered a default on the first action.
We, therefore, reverse and remand for trial on the merits.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Pers. ONE, Inc. v. John Sommerer & Co., P.A., 564 So. 2d 1217 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…tity of the thing sued for, identity of the cause of action, identity of the persons and parties to the action, and identity of quality for or against whom the claim is made. Avant v. Hammond Jones, Inc., 79 So. 2d 423 (Fla. 1955); Rajsfus v. Fabri, 535 So. 2d 690 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). All identities are present in this case. Both suits were brought to recover the same $550 as liquidated damages pursuant to a single contract. The causes of action were identical.1 Simply recharac-terizing a suit for account stat…
-
Ludovici v. McKINESS, 545 So. 2d 335 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…— identities of the persons or parties, of the quality or capacity of the person for or against whom the claim is made, of the cause of action, and of the thing sued for in each action — Albrecht v. State, 444 So. 2d 8 (Fla.1984); Rajsfus v. Fabri, 535 So. 2d 690 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988), but also on an adjudication on the merits. Malunney v. Pearlstein, 539 So. 2d 493 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989); Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 535 So. 2d 335 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). Here, although the…
-
Deutsche Bank v. Quintela, 268 So. 3d 156 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019)
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Avant v. Hammond Jones, Inc., 79 So. 2d 423 (Fla. 1955)