GERALDINE SMITH AND EDWARD CLEVELAND SMITH, APPELLANTS,
v.
UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION AND PHYLLIS DIANE WHALEN, 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.
The court reversed a trial court's dismissal of an insurer defendant based on res judicata and estoppel by judgment, holding that these doctrines require identity of parties and therefore do not apply when a new defendant (Phyllis Whalen) was not party to the prior litigation.
The court held that neither res judicata nor estoppel by judgment justified dismissal of the insurer because an essential element of both doctrines is identity of parties, and Phyllis Whalen was not a party to the prior cases. The dismissal order was therefore in error.
[1] Res judicata requires an identity of parties for its application.
[2] Estoppel by judgment requires an identity of parties to invoke the defense.
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“One essential element is identity of parties.”
Establishes that identity of parties is a required element of res judicata under Florida law
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGeraldine and Edward Smith filed an automobile negligence action against United Services Automobile Association and Phyllis Diane Whalen. The trial co…
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 Identity Of Parties cases and more on FLexlaw
The plaintiffs in an automobile negligence action have appealed from an order entered by the Circuit Court for Okaloosa County granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint as to the defendant insurer.
The sole question presented for our determination in this appeal is whether the said court committed error in dismissing the complaint as to the defendant insurer upon the basis of res judicata or estoppel by judgment.
In the order appealed from herein the court stated that, in entering the order, it considered “the two prior cases that were filed against D. J. Whalen, Helen Whalen and United Services Automobile Association. . . . ”
The two prior cases referred to by the court in its said order were filed against D. J. Whalen and Helen Whalen, the parents of the defendant Phyllis Whalen, and against the United Services Automobile Association. Phyllis was not, however, a party to those cases.
The language quoted above from the order appealed from no doubt reflects the third ground of the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint, which ground reads as follows: “That the decision rendered in a previous case tried in this Court, to wit: GERALDINE LAWMAN and EDWARD CLEVELAND SMITH vs. D. J. WHA-LEN, HELEN, WHALEN, and UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, is res judicata or constitutes an es-toppel by judgment and is conclusive of the issues which the Plaintiffs would try herein and is effective to preclude the maintenance of this action by the parties herein.”
In our opinion, neither the doctrine of res judicata nor the doctrine of estoppel by *502judgment justified the court in dismissing the insurer as a party defendant because of the previous litigation. Phyllis Whalen was concededly not a party to that litigation.
The courts of Florida have long held that an essential element of res judi-cata is the identity of parties. For instance, the Supreme Court of Florida held in Ford v. Dania Lumber & Supply Co., Inc. et al., 150 Fla. 435, 7 So.2d 594 (1942):
“The law of res judicata has many times been declared by this Court. McGregor v. Provident Trust Co., 119 Fla. 718, 162 So. 323; Day v. Weadock et ux., 104 Fla. 251, 140 So. 668. One essential element is identity of parties. 34 C.J. 915; Black on Judgments, 2d Ed., Section 500 et seq.”
Similarly as to the doctrine of estoppel by judgment — the District Court of Appeal, Third District of Florida, held in Martin v. Arrow Cabs, Inc., 107 So.2d 394 (Fla.App. 1958) that the identity of the parties is “required to invoke the defense of estoppel by judgment.”
We hold in the case at bar that, since the defendant Phyllis Whalen, was not a party to “the two prior cases” mentioned in the order appealed from, neither the doctrine of res judicata nor the doctrine of estoppel by judgment is applicable, and so the said order, dismissing the insurer as a party defendant, was in error. We find no merit in the defendant Phyllis Whalen’s cross-assignment, as we think the plaintiffs’ complaint stated a cause of action as to her.
The order appealed from is reversed and the cause is remanded with directions for further proceedings consistent with the views hereinabove set forth.
Affirmed in part and reversed in part.
RAWLS and JOHNSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Todd v. Carroll, 347 So. 2d 618 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)…some other Florida county. As to estoppel by judgment application to administrative hearings see Carol City Utilities, Inc. v. Miami Gardens Shopping Plaza, 165 So. 2d 199 (Fla.3d DCA 1964). See also Smith v. United Services Automobile Association, 259 So. 2d 501 (Fla.1st DCA 1972).…
-
Sauder v. Harbour Club Condo. NO. Three, Inc., 346 So. 2d 556 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)…Inc. was not a party to suit 1, so the identity of parties necessary to the application of res judicata or estoppel by judgment was not present. Matthews v. Matthews, 133 So. 2d 91 (Fla.2d DCA 1961); Smith v. United Services Automobile Association, 259 So. 2d 501 (Fla.1st DCA 1972). We cannot quarrel with the court’s observation that many of the provisions in the common and recreation areas use agreement resemble a lease. However, this agreement ought not be construed in a vacuum but should be considered in…
-
Fernandez v. Yordalys Cruz (Fla. 3d DCA 2022)…rida decisions in this arena. See United Auto. Ins. Co. v. Millennium Radiology, LLC, 47 Fla. L. Weekly D175 (Fla. 3d DCA Jan. 12, 2022); Hill v. Colonial Enters., Inc., 219 So. 2d 51, 53 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969); Smith v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 259 So. 2d 501, 502 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972). The logic underlying Youngblood and its progeny applies with equal force to the instant case. Here, the father filed the prior fraud claim in his individual capacity but initiated the later constructive trust claims i…
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
- McGregor v. Provident Tr. Co. of Philadelphia, 119 Fla. 718 (Fla. 1935)
- Ford v. Dania Lumber & Supply Co., Inc., 150 Fla. 435 (Fla. 1942)
- Day v. Weadock, 104 Fla. 251 (Fla. 1932)
- Martin v. Arrow Cabs, Inc., 107 So. 2d 394 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)
- State v. Williams, 104 Fla. 304 (Fla. 1932)