ICC CHEMICAL CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
MICHAEL J. FREEMAN, ETC., 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.
ICC Chemical Corporation sued Freeman individually for fraud based on alleged misrepresentations in a facsimile notification regarding price increases, after losing an arbitration dispute with Freeman's client, Pacific Trading. The court held that res judicata barred ICC's fraud claim because the issues could have been raised in the prior arbitration and Freeman was a privy to Pacific Trading.
Res judicata bars ICC's fraud action against Freeman because all four required identities for res judicata are present: identity of the thing sued for, identity of the cause of action, identity of the persons and parties (Freeman was a privy to Pacific Trading), and identity of the capacity in which Freeman acted. The issues of bad faith and misrepresentation arising from the facsimile notification were or could have been raised in the prior arbitration proceedings.
[1] Res judicata bars a subsequent action when there is an identity of the thing sued for, the cause of action, the persons and parties to the actions, and the quality or cap…
[2] Res judicata applies to all matters actually raised and determined in a prior action, as well as to all other matters which could properly have been raised and determined…
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 res judicata provides that a final judgment or decree on the merits rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction is conclusive of the rights of the parties and their privies, and constitutes a bar to a subsequent action or suit involving the same cause of action or subject matter.”
Establishes the governing legal standard for res judicata that the court applied to bar ICC's claim.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceICC contracted with Pacific Trading to purchase polypropylene. Freeman, acting as Pacific Trading's attorney, notified ICC via facsimile that Pacific …
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 Economic Coercion cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
ICC Chemical Corporation (ICC) appeals from a partial final summary judgment in favor of Michael J. Freeman (Freeman). We affirm.
ICC contracted with Pacific Trading Overseas Corporation (Pacific Trading) to purchase polypropylene. Freeman, acting as attorney for Pacific Trading, notified ICC via facsimile that Pacific Trading had obtained the product but it would only perform under the contracts if ICC agreed to pay a higher price. ICC agreed to pay the higher price, and subsequently renegotiated the contracts. After Pacific Trading delivered the goods, ICC refused to pay the increased purchase price and paid only the price originally agreed upon. Pacific Trading filed an arbitration claim against ICC to enforce the contract modifications. ICC counterclaimed for breach of contract, claiming economic coercion and bad faith, alleging that the contract modifications were procured by fraud and bad faith partly through the facsimile notification of price increases that Freeman sent to ICC on Pacific Trading’s behalf. The arbitration concluded in favor of Pacific Trading, finding that ICC owed Pacific Trading $212,000 on the contracts as modified. This award was later approved and confirmed by a United States District Court in ICC Chemical Corp. against Pacific Trading Corp., No. 92 Civ. 7569 (S.D.N.Y. March 24, 1993).
In the instant action, ICC brings suit against Freeman individually for alleged fraudulent misrepresentations contained in Pacific Trading’s facsimile notification of price increases. On Freeman’s motion, the trial court granted summary judgment against ICC on the basis that ICC’s fraud action was barred by res judicata as a consequence of the prior arbitration adjudication. ICC appeals.
The issue in this case is whether res judicata operates to bar ICC’s fraud claim against Freeman individually, based on the prior arbitration in favor of Pacific Trading, for whom Freeman worked. The doctrine of res judicata provides that a final judgment or decree on the merits rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction is conclusive of the rights of the parties and their privies, and constitutes a bar to a subsequent action or suit involving the same cause of action or subject matter. McGregor v. Provident Trust Co., 119 Fla. 718, 162 So. 323 (1935).
To make a matter res judicata, there must be a concurrence of the following conditions: 1) identity of the thing sued for, 2) identity of the cause of action, 3) identity of the persons and parties to the actions, and 4) identity of the quality or capacity of the person for or against whom the claim is made. Id. 162 So. at 328; 32 Fla.Jur.2d Judgments and Decrees § 107 (1981).
These four identities required for res judicata are present in the instant ease. The relief sought by ICC could have been granted in either action, the facts necessary to the maintenance of the two actions are identical, Freeman was a privy to Pacific Trading in the first action, and Freeman’s “capacity” in both cases is identical in the sense that ICC previously tried to avoid the contract modifications based partly on the information contained in Freeman’s facsimile notification to ICC.
Res judicata applies to all matters actually raised and determined as well as to all other matters which could properly have been raised and determined in the prior action, whether they were or not. Hay v. Salisbury, 92 Fla. 446, 109 So. 617 (1926); Del Vecchio v. Del Vecchio, 179 So. 2d 400 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965); 32 Fla.Jur.2d Judgments and Decrees § 115 (1981). The issues of bad faith allegedly arising out of the facsimile notification sent by Freeman were raised or could have been raised in the prior arbitration proceedings.
Accordingly, we find that administrative res judicata acts to bar ICC’s instant action against Freeman and we affirm the order under review.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (19 total)
-
Tyson v. Viacom, Inc., 890 So. 2d 1205 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)…) identity of the thing sued for, 2) identity of the cause of action, 3) identity of the persons and parties to the actions, and 4) identity of the quality or capacity of the person for or against whom the claim is made.” ICC Chem. Corp. v. Freeman, 640 So. 2d 92, 93 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994). The rule against splitting a cause of action is an aspect of the doctrine of res judicata. Froman v. Kirland, 753 So. 2d 114, 116 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); see also Alvarez v. Nestor Salesco, Inc., 695 So. 2d 941 (Fla. 4th DCA 199…1 / 2
-
Hoechst Celanese Corp. v. FRY, 693 So. 2d 1003 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)…e same cause of action and is conclusive as to all matters germane thereto that were or could have been raised. See Albrecht v. State, 444 So. 2d 8, 11-12 (Fla. 1984); Hinchee v. Fisher, 93 So. 2d 351, 353 (Fla. 1957); ICC Chemical Corp. v. Freeman, 640 So. 2d 92, 93 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994). Thus, the appellees were correct in their assertion that an order which merely dismissed the cause and did not enter judgment for Shell and HCC was nothing more than an interlocutory order which could not provide the basis fo…
-
Denson v. State, 775 So. 2d 288 (Fla. 2000)…ine of res judicata provides that a final judgment on the merits is conclusive of the rights of the parties and constitutes a bar to a subsequent action or suit involving the same cause of action or subject matter. See ICC Chemical Corp. v. Freeman, 640 So. 2d 92, 93 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994). The idea underlying res judicata is that if something has already been decided, the petitioner has had his day in court, and, for purposes of judicial economy, it generally will not be reexamined in any court (except for appe…
Previewing 3 of 19 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- McGregor v. Provident Tr. Co. of Philadelphia, 119 Fla. 718 (Fla. 1935)
- Hay v. Lyman A. Salisbury and Ruth Salisbury, 92 Fla. 446 (Fla. 1926)
- Crute v. State, 109 So. 617 (Ala. Ct. App. 1926)
- del Vecchio v. del Vecchio, 179 So. 2d 400 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)