THE EDUCATION RESOURCES INSTITUTE, INC., ETC., APPELLANT,
v.
MARK W. RICKARD, 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.
The court held that the doctrine of res judicata bars The Education Resources Institute, Inc. (TERI) from pursuing its state court claim to collect on defaulted promissory notes.
TERI sued Mark Rickard to collect on defaulted promissory notes after a bankruptcy court found Rickard's debt to TERI non-dischargeable but remained s…
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 Collection On Promissory Note cases and more on FLexlaw
RAMIREZ, J.
The Education Resources Institute, Inc. (“TERI”) appeals the entry of an adverse final summary judgment arising from its lawsuit against appellee Mark Rickard to collect on defaulted promissory notes Rick-ard executed for educational student loans. We affirm because the doctrine of res judi-cata bars TERI’s state court claim.
Rickard filed an out-of-state bankruptcy proceeding to which TERI filed a counterclaim to liquidate the amount of damages Rickard owed TERI. Rickard moved to dismiss the counterclaim to which TERI argued that it was entitled to a money judgment pursuant to the promissory notes it sued upon. The bankruptcy court denied Rickard’s motion, and subsequently entered its final judgment finding only that Rickard’s debt owed to TERI was non-dischargeable. The judgment was silent on the counterclaim. Rickard appealed the judgment but TERI neither moved for rehearing, clarification nor filed a cross appeal. Years later, TERI filed the underlying action against Rickard to liquidate its claim.
As we stated in Amador v. Florida Board of Regents, 830 So. 2d 120 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002), Florida courts apply principles of federal claim preclusion to determine whether a Florida claim is res judica-ta in cases where a prior federal court judgment exists. Under the federal law of res judicata, a final judgment on the merits of an action precludes the re-litigation of claims that were previously raised or could have been raised in a former action. See Apparel Art Int’l, Inc. v. Amertex Enters. Ltd., 48 F. 3d 576 (1st Cir.1995). Although the bankruptcy court did not specifically address TERI’s counterclaim in its final judgment, TERI cannot now pursue the identical claim it raised in the bankruptcy proceeding in the underlying court action. We must therefore affirm.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Beyond Int'l, Inc. v. Diverse Enters. (Fla. 3d DCA 2021)…Peter R. Lopez, Judge. Osorio Internacional, P.A., and Carlos F. Osorio and Raúl A. Reichard, for appellants. Alberto F. Sarasua, for appellees. Before LOGUE, LINDSEY and LOBREE, JJ. PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Educ. Res. Inst., Inc. v. Rickard, 924 So. 2d 40, 41 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (“Florida courts apply principles of federal claim preclusion to determine whether a Florida claim is res judicata in cases where a prior federal court judgment exists. Under the federal law of res judicata, a final judgme…
-
Nat'l Collegiate Student Loan Tr. 2007-3 v. Delvis de Leon (Fla. 3d DCA 2019)…ment based on his res judicata defense. On June 21, 2018, the trial court entered an order granting borrower’s summary judgment motion. In its order, the trial court concluded: Pursuant to The Educational Research Institute, Inc. v. Rickard [sic], 924 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006), Defendant’s 2009 federal bankruptcy, in which Plaintiff was a creditor on express notice but filed no proof of claim, precludes the relitigation of the claims that could have been raised in the context of the bankruptcy proceedin…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- Amador v. Fla. Bd. OF Regents, 830 So. 2d 120 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)