E. W. COLE, APPELLANT,
v.
FIRST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF AMERICA, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, 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 Florida District Court of Appeal reversed a summary judgment dismissing appellant's fraud action on res judicata grounds. The court held that the prior contract action and the current tort action were sufficiently distinct in their required facts and relief sought to avoid res judicata bar.
The doctrine of res judicata does not bar the tort action because the four required identities are not present: the facts necessary to prove fraud and deceit are contradictory to those necessary to sustain the contract action, and the relief sought differs between the actions (damages versus specific performance). Therefore, res judicata does not apply despite the common factual origin.
[1] Res judicata applies only when there is an identity of the thing sued for, the cause of action, the persons and parties, and the quality or capacity of the parties.
[2] The facts required to prove a fraud and deceit action are contradictory to those required to prove a contract action, thus precluding res judicata.
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 does not however bar a cause merely because the actions arose from the same factual situation.”
Establishes that common facts alone do not trigger res judicata bar
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant sued appellee, a Florida corporation, for fraud in connection with the sale of real estate, seeking money damages. Appellant had previously …
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 Joinder Of Causes Of Action cases and more on FLexlaw
BOARDMAN, Acting Chief Judge.
Appellant/plaintiff timely appeals a summary judgment entered in favor of appel-lee/defendant finding that appellant’s action was barred by res judicata.
The complaint initiating this case sounded in tort alleging that appellee fraudulent ly agreed to sell a parcel of real estate which it did not own and prayed for money damages. Appellant had filed a prior suit against the same appellee, arising out of the same factual circumstances, seeking specific performance of a contract to convey that parcel. In the contract action the trial court granted a summary judgment to appellee finding that appellant had not submitted a written contract sufficient to withstand the statute of frauds.
It is not disputed that the contract and the tort actions arose from the same underlying facts. The doctrine of res judi-cata does not however bar a cause merely because the actions arose from the same factual situation. Seaboard Coast Line R. Co. v. Industrial Contracting Co., 260 So. 2d 860 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972). We point out that res judicata applies only when the four identities are present (1) identity of the thing sued for, (2) identity of the cause of action, (3) identity of the persons and parties, and (4) identity of the quality or capacity of persons for or against whom the claim is made. E. g., Matthews v. Matthews, 133 So. 2d 91 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961).
Identity of the causes of action is established where the facts which are required to maintain both actions are identical. Gordon v. Gordon, 160 Fla. 838, 36 So. 2d 774 (1948). In the case before us the facts necessary to allege and prove the fraud and deceit action are contradictory to those necessary to sustain the contract action. This obvious difference between the facts essential to each of these two causes of action precludes the application of the doctrine of res judicata.
In addition the requirement of identity of the thing sued for is not satisfied. Appellant prayed for damages in the tort action and for specific performance in the contract action. We are aware that a difference in the relief sought does not conclusively bar operation of res judicata but where two different grounds of relief are sought pursuant to two separate and distinct causes of action it would be improper to apply the doctrine. See Seaboard Coast Line, supra.
True it may be the preferred practice to allege all of a party’s causes of action in one complaint but the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure do not require that it be done. See Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.110(g). The rules permit joinder of causes of action but they do not prevent, nor is there any principle which precludes, the prosecution of several actions upon several causes of action. .
It makes no difference that the causes of action might be united in a single suit; the right of the party in whose favor they exist to separate suits is not affected by that circumstance. .
IB J. Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 0.410, at 1163 (2d ed. 1948), quoting Secor v. Sturgis, 16 N.Y. 548, 554 (1858).
REVERSED.
GRIMES and SCHEB, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
Husky Indus., Inc. v. Griffith, 422 So. 2d 996 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)…ity of the cause of action; (3) Identity of persons and parties; (4) Identity of the quality or capacity of the persons for or against whom the claim is made. Donahue v. Davis, 68 So. 2d 163 (Fla.1953); Cole v. First Development Corp. of America, 339 So. 2d 1130 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976). Here, the four identities are not met, since the causes of action are different. The test for identity of a cause of action for the purposes of determining res judicata is the identity of the facts essential to the maintenance o…
-
Tyson v. Viacom, Inc., 890 So. 2d 1205 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)…o. 2d .566 (Fla. 2d D.CA 1984)(emphasis added); see U.S. Project Mgmt., Inc. v. Parc Royale E. Dev., Inc., 861 So. 2d 74, 76 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)(same); Gold v. Bankier, 840 So. 2d 395, 397 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)(quoting Cole v. First Dev. Corp. of Am., 339 So. 2d 1130, 1131 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976)(citing Gordon v. Gordon, 160 Fla. 838, 36 So. 2d 774 (1948)))(“ ‘Identity of the causes of action is established where the facts which are required to maintain both actions are identical.’ ”)(emphasis added). In Tyson’s cas…1 / 2
-
Gold v. Bankier, 840 So. 2d 395 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)…he second element, because if that is not satisfied, res judicata does not bar the action. “Identity of the causes of action is established where the facts which are required to maintain both actions are identical.” Cole v. First Dev. Corp. of Am., 339 So. 2d 1130, 1131 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976) (citing Gordon v. Gordon, 160 Fla. 838, 36 So. 2d 774 (1948)). Here, the facts required to maintain each action were completely separate and distinct, as were the causes of action. Gold objected to the probate of the will on…
Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Indus. Contracting Co., Inc., 260 So. 2d 860 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972)
- Matthews v. Olive M. Matthews, 133 So. 2d 91 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961)
- Gordon v. Gordon, 160 Fla. 838 (Fla. 1948)
- LeVINE v. Robinson, 160 Fla. 822 (Fla. 1948)