LINEAS AEREAS CONSTARRICENSES, S.A., A COSTA RICAN COMPANY AND LACSA INTERNATIONAL, INC., APPELLANTS,
v.
HTP, LTD., A BERMUDA CORP., TYLER CORPORATION, A CONNECTICUT CORP., STEPHEN H. GAMBLE, INDIVIDUALLY, MILLER HAMILTON, SNIDER, ODOM AND BRIDGEMAN, A/K/A MILLER, HAMILTON, SNIDER & ODOM, A PARTNERSHIP, JOHN C.H. MILLER, ET AL., 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.
In this appeal, the court affirmed summary judgments dismissing a fraud claim against defendants in a settlement dispute and barring a counterclaim. The court found that the plaintiffs were barred from pursuing a second action against joint tortfeasors after having recovered judgment against one of them, and that the counterclaim was barred under the compulsory counterclaim rule.
The court held that while the earlier case was res judicata as to claims against defendants named in it, the plaintiffs were nonetheless barred from pursuing the current action because they had already recovered against one tortfeasor and could not maintain multiple actions against joint tortfeasors. Additionally, the counterclaim was barred by the compulsory counterclaim rule because it should have been asserted in the prior proceedings.
[1] A claim is barred by res judicata when it arises from the same subject matter as a prior settled action between the same parties.
[2] A prior judgment is not res judicata as to claims against parties not named in the earlier 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“while we find that the earlier case reported in HTP, Ltd., etc. et al. v. Lineas Aereas Costarricenses, S.A., etc., et al., supra, is res judicata to any claim against those defendants named in the earlier case, we find that the earlier ease would not be res judicata to the plaintiffs' attempts to bring suit against the other defendants.”
Establishes that res judicata applies only to defendants actually named in the earlier case, not to other potential defendants.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLineas Aereas filed a new action alleging fraud in the inducement regarding a settlement agreement that was the subject of an earlier appeal. The defe…
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 Compulsory Counterclaim cases and more on FLexlaw
[*781] PER CURIAM.
During the pendency of an earlier appeal between certain of these parties, reported in HTP, Ltd. etc. et al. v. Lineas Aereas Costarricenses, S.A. etc., et al., 661 So. 2d 1221 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996),1 the appellants herein filed a new action alleging fraud in the inducement as to the settlement agreement, which is the subject of the earlier opinion, against the appellees as defendants. The complaint was met by the defendants filing an answer alleging the defense of res judicata and a counterclaim seeking to recover damages for breach of an underlying agreement which was part of the subject matter of the settlement agreement involved in the earlier case.
The trial court entered a final summary judgment in this latest action in favor of the defendants on the defense of res judicata and entered a final summary judgment for the cross defendants as a matter of law. Both of these summary judgments are under review in this proceeding by appeal and cross appeal.
While we find that the earlier case reported in HTP, Ltd., etc. et al. v. Lineas Aereas Costarricenses, S.A., etc., et al., supra, is res judicata to any claim against those defendants named in the earlier case, we find that the earlier ease would not be res judica-ta to the plaintiffs’ attempts to bring suit against the other defendants. Fincher Motor Sales, Inc. v. Lakin, 156 So. 2d 672 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963); Pendarvis v. Pfeifer, 132 Fla. 724, 182 So. 307 (1938).
However, it appears that the final judgment from the earlier ease has now been satisfied. Even though the plaintiffs would be entitled to maintain multiple actions against joint tortfeasors, having recovered against one of those tortfeasors, the plaintiffs can no longer maintain an action against the other. Travelers Ins. Co. v. Wilson, 371 So. 2d 145 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Weaver v. Stone, 212 So. 2d 80 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968).
Accordingly, the plaintiffs are not entitled to pursue this cause of action, as the issue is now moot. We also find that the counterclaim urged by the defendants in the trial court is barred by the compulsory counterclaim rule, which required any such claim to have been asserted in the prior proceedings which resulted in the jury verdict and final judgment thereon which was affirmed by this court in HTP, Ltd., etc. et al. v. Lineas Aereas Costarricenses, S.A., etc., et al., supra. See Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.170(b).
Therefore the final summary judgments under review are affirmed.
Affirmed.
. We note that review has been granted by the Supreme Court in regard to this opinion. See 670 So. 2d 938 (Fla.1996).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gainsburg v. The Florida Bar (S.D. Fla. 2024)
Authorities Cited
- Fincher Motor Sales, Inc. v. Cecile Lakin, 156 So. 2d 672 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)
- The Travelers Ins. Co. v. Laurence H. Wilson, 371 So. 2d 145 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Pendarvis v. Pfeifer, 132 Fla. 724 (Fla. 1938)
- Am. Cas. Co. of Reading v. Am. Fire & Cas. Co., 212 So. 2d 80 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)
- HTP, Ltd. v. Lineas Aereas Costarricenses, S.A., 661 So. 2d 1221 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)
- Weaver v. Stone, 212 So. 2d 80 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968)