LAWRENCE NELSON, APPELLANT,
v.
PEARL REVER, 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.
Nelson appeals from summary judgment dismissing his counterclaim and third-party complaint in a dispute over real estate transactions. The court affirmed the dismissal based on the doctrine of res judicata, holding that Nelson could not relitigate matters already decided in a prior New York judgment, though the affirmance was limited to those specific matters decided in New York.
The trial court's summary judgment and dismissal of Nelson's amended counterclaim and third-party complaint are affirmed, as the doctrine of res judicata bars relitigation of matters actually litigated and determined in the prior New York judgment. However, the affirmance is limited only to those matters decided in the partial New York judgment and does not prejudice issues currently pending before the New York court.
[1] Under the full faith and credit clause of the United States Constitution, the doctrine of res judicata may be applied to a valid and final judgment rendered in another st…
[2] Parties are precluded from litigating matters that were actually litigated and determined in prior actions.
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“Under the full faith and credit clause of the United States Constitution the doctrine of res judicata may be applied to the valid and partial final judgment rendered in New York.”
Establishes the constitutional basis for applying res judicata to out-of-state judgments
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff Rever brought suit in New York against defendant Nelson regarding three real estate transactions in Dade County, alleging Nelson failed to p…
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 Third Party Complaint cases and more on FLexlaw
Defendant seeks review of trial court’s entry of an adverse summary judgment and dismissal with prejudice of his amended counterclaim and third party complaint.
Plaintiff brought suit in New York demanding an accounting for three real estate transactions entered into in Dade County with defendant, her partner, in which plaintiff alleged that defendant failed to properly account for and disburse monies collected. A stipulation was made in open court whereby defendant agreed to pay plaintiff $60,000 by a specified date *880and if payment was not forthcoming, a partial judgment against defendant could be entered. Subsequently, defendant did not pay plaintiff, judgment was entered according to the stipulation and ' plaintiff sought to enforce the New York judgment in Dade County. Numerous pleadings were filed in the Florida case including defendant’s counterclaim, amended counterclaim and third party complaint. Defendant’s amended counterclaim alleged that out of the same transactions which were the subject matter of plaintiff’s suit, plaintiff’s assignors and plaintiff owed in excess of $100,000 to defendant. Following entry of summary judgment for plaintiff, trial court dismissed with prejudice defendant’s amended counterclaim and third party complaint, denied defendant’s motion for new trial on the basis that defendant attempted to litigate and relitigate the same issues that were already decided by or pending in the New York court.
Under the full faith and credit clause of the United States Constitution the doctrine of res judicata may be applied to the valid and partial final judgment rendered in New York. Maclay v. Maclay, 147 Fla. 77, 2 So.2d 361 (1941). Parties may not litigate matters actually litigated and determined in earlier actions. Field v. Field, Fla.1956, 91 So.2d 640; Gordon v. Gordon, Fla.1952, 59 So.2d 40, cert. den. 344 U.S. 878, 73 S.Ct. 165, 97 L.Ed. 680; Bardwell v. Langston, Fla.App.1971, 244 So.2d 742; Meyer v. Forty-Five Twenty-Five, Fla.App. 1967, 198 So.2d 650. The summary judgment of the lower court and its dismissal with prejudice of defendant’s amended counterclaim and third party complaint is affirmed.
This affirmance, however, relates only to those matters decided in the partial judgment of the New York court and does not prejudice issues and rights currently pending before the New York court.
The final order of the Circuit Court is modified to reflect the above and as modified it is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Russell v. A & L Dev., Inc., 273 So. 2d 439 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)…udicata of the present actions. We agree with the trial court’s determination and accordingly affirm. It is well established, that parties may not litigate matters actually litigated and determined in earlier actions. Nelson v. Rever, Fla.App.1972, 264 So. 2d 879, and the cases cited therein. It is our opinion that the appellant has had his day in court on the issue of the breach of this contract and the interference therewith. As to the breach itself, the previous action involved the same cause of action ag…
-
Gartner v. Winter, 270 So. 2d 470 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)…he same parties issues that have previously been determined in an earlier lawsuit. Field v. Field, Fla.1956, 91 So. 2d 640; Gordon v. Gordon, Fla.1952, 59 So. 2d 40, cert. den. 344 U.S. 878, 73 S.Ct. 165, 97 L.Ed. 680; Nelson v. Rever, Fla.App.1972, 264 So. 2d 879; Bardwell v. Langston, Fla.App.1971, 244 So. 2d 742. Affirmed.…
-
Nelson v. Rever, 273 So. 2d 77 (Fla. 1973)…Certiorari denied. 264 So. 2d 879. CARLTON, C. J., and ROBERTS, ERVIN, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Sebastian v. THE City of Miami (Fla. 3d DCA 2020)
- Gordon v. Gordon, 344 U.S. 878 (U.S. 1952)
- Davena v. United States, 344 U.S. 878 (U.S. 1952)
- Fenton C. Maclay v. Maclay, 147 Fla. 77 (Fla. 1941)
- Morris v. State of Fla. & Nathan Mayo, 91 So. 2d 640 (Fla. 1956)
- Field v. Field, 91 So. 2d 640 (Fla. 1956)
- Meyer v. Forty-Five Twenty-Five, Inc., 198 So. 2d 650 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)
- Bardwell v. Marlin Langston, 244 So. 2d 742 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971)