JOSE AMADO PEREZ, M.D., P.A., APPELLANT,
v.
SERGIO MAX RODRIGUEZ, M.D., 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.
Dr. Jose Perez appeals summary judgment dismissing his breach of contract claims based on res judicata, arguing that a prior default judgment against him on promissory notes does not bar the present contract action. The court reversed, holding that the default judgment does not conclusively establish issues necessary to resolve the current breach of contract claims.
The default judgment is not res judicata as to the breach of contract claims because those claims raise issues not involved in the prior action and not necessary to uphold the default judgment. The prior complaint did not even mention the underlying contract now at issue, and the present suit alleges facts and theories of liability that are not inconsistent with the established liability on the promissory notes.
[1] A default judgment conclusively establishes the truth of all material allegations in the prior complaint and every fact necessary to uphold the judgment, but is not concl…
[2] A prior default judgment on promissory notes does not preclude subsequent breach of contract actions if the contract was not mentioned in the prior action and the subsequ…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“a default judgment conclusively establishes between the parties, so far as subsequent proceedings on a different cause of action are concerned, the truth of all material allegations contained in the complaint in the first action and every fact necessary to uphold the default judgment, but such judgment is not conclusive as to any defense or issue which was not raised and is not necessary to uphold the default judgment.”
Establishes the limited scope of res judicata effect of default judgments
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRodriguez obtained a default judgment against Perez on two promissory notes that Perez executed and allegedly defaulted on. Perez subsequently brought…
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 Promissory Note cases and more on FLexlaw
HUBBART, Judge.
The plaintiff (Jose Perez) appeals from a final judgment entered in favor of the defendant (Sergio Rodriguez) upon granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment as to counts I and IV of the plaintiff’s complaint. The motion for summary judgment was based on res judicata grounds. The plaintiff contends on appeal that a prior default judgment entered against him in an action brought by the defendant Rodriguez on two promissory notes was not res judicata as to the present breach of contract actions notwithstanding that the prior notes arose out of obligations contained in the contract now sued upon. We agree and reverse.
The law is clear that a default judgment conclusively establishes between the parties, so far as subsequent proceedings on a different cause of action are concerned, the truth of all material allegations contained in the complaint in the first action and every fact necessary to uphold the default judgment, but such judgment is not conclusive as to any defense or issue which was not raised and is not necessary to uphold the default judgment. Baum v. Pines Realty, Inc., 164 So. 2d 517, 522 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964). The complaint in the prior action on the promissory notes alleged that the plaintiff Perez executed two promissory notes in favor of the defendant Rodriguez which the plaintiff Perez defaulted on and for which judgment should be entered in the amount due and owing. The default judgment entered upon this complaint conclusively establishes that the plaintiff Perez is liable to the defendant Rodriguez on the two promissory notes in the total amount adjudged.
The default judgment, however, is not conclusive on the breach of contract actions presently brought since these actions raise issues which were not involved in the prior actions and which are not necessary to uphold the prior default judgment. Indeed, the complaint in the prior action does not even mention the contract upon which the present suit is brought. Moreover, the present suit alleges facts and theories of liability under the contract which are in no way inconsistent with the established liability of the plaintiff Perez on the prior promissory notes. Counts I and IV of the present complaint are, accordingly, not barred by res judicata.
The judgment appealed from is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Krug v. Meros, 468 So. 2d 299 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)…rial judge in entering the prior judgment for Krug. Additionally, the prior judgment entered after default is not conclusive as to any defense or issue which was not raised and is not necessary to uphold the default judgment. See Perez v. Rodriguez, 349 So. 2d 826 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). Therefore, we believe there is support to bolster Krug’s contention that the issue of his rights to the leases and the [*303] alleged fraudulent conduct by Meros with respect to these leases had not been resolved by the trial cou…
-
Martino v. Fla. Ins. Guar. Ass'n, 383 So. 2d 942 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…2 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975), cert. denied, 317 So. 2d 767 (Fla.1975), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 1034, 96 S.Ct. 567, 46 L.Ed.2d 408 (1975). Furthermore a judgment by default is as conclusive on rights of parties as a judgment on the merits. Perez v. Rodriguez, 349 So. 2d 826 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Sottile v. Gaines Construction Company, 281 So. 2d 558 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973); Baum v. Pines Realty, Inc., 164 So. 2d 517 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964); and generally 47 Am.Jur.2d, Judgments §§ 1152 et seq. The relevant provision of Section 63…
-
Marko Dejanovic v. Block (Fla. 3d DCA 2026)…proceedings on a different cause of action are concerned, the truth of all material allegations contained in the complaint in the first action and every fact necessary to uphold the default judgment[.]” Jose Amado Perez, M.D., P.A. v. Rodriguez, 349 So. 2d 826, 827 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). Even if Dejanovic is the sole owner, he is not identical with the corporation and limited liability company he owns. “A general principle of corporate law is that a corporation is a separate legal entity, distinct from th…
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
- Baum v. Pines Realty, Inc., 164 So. 2d 517 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)