res judicata doctrine in Florida

2023Under the doctrine of res judicata, “[a] judgment on the merits rendered in a former suit between the same parties or their privies, upon the same cause of action, by a court of competent jurisdiction, is conclusive not only as to every matter which was offered and received to sustain or defeat the claim, but as to every other matter which might with propriety have been litigated and determined in that action.” Fla. Dep’t of Transp. v. Juliano, 801 So. 2d 101, 105 (Fla. 2001) (quoting Kimbrell v. Paige, 448 So. 2d 1009, 1012 (Fla. 1984)). “[A] judgment on the merits will thus bar ‘a subsequent

2023Under the doctrine of res judicata, “[a] judgment on the merits rendered in a former suit between the same parties or their privies, upon the same cause of action, by a court of competent jurisdiction, is conclusive not only as to every matter which was offered and received to sustain or defeat the claim, but as to every other matter which might with propriety have been litigated and determined in that action.” Fla. Dep’t of Transp. v. Juliano, 801 So. 2d 101, 105 (Fla. 2001) (quoting Kimbrell v. Paige, 448 So. 2d 1009, 1012 (Fla. 1984)). “[A] judgment on the merits will thus bar ‘a subsequent

2023Under the doctrine of res judicata, “[a] judgment on the merits rendered in a former suit between the same parties or their privies, upon the same cause of action, by a court of competent jurisdiction, is conclusive not only as to every matter which was offered and received to sustain or defeat the claim, but as to every other matter which might with propriety have been litigated and determined in that action.” Fla. Dep’t of Transp. v. Juliano, 801 So. 2d 101, 105 (Fla. 2001) (quoting Kimbrell v. Paige, 448 So. 2d 1009, 1012 (Fla. 1984)). “[A] judgment on the merits will thus bar ‘a subsequent

2023Under the doctrine of res judicata, “[a] judgment on the merits rendered in a former suit between the same parties or their privies, upon the same cause of action, by a court of competent jurisdiction, is conclusive not only as to every matter which was offered and received to sustain or defeat the claim, but as to every other matter which might with propriety have been litigated and determined in that action.” Fla. Dep’t of Transp. v. Juliano, 801 So. 2d 101, 105 (Fla. 2001) (quoting Kimbrell v. Paige, 448 So. 2d 1009, 1012 (Fla. 1984)). “[A] judgment on the merits will thus bar ‘a subsequent

2008Under the doctrine of res judicata, a final judgment issued by a court of competent jurisdiction bars "a subsequent suit between the same parties based upon the same cause of action." Gordon v. Gordon, 59 So.2d 40, 44 (Fla.1952).

2005Similarly, the doctrine of res judicata "is founded upon the sound proposition that there should be an end to litigation and that in the interest of the State every justiciable controversy should be settled in one action *1222 in order that the courts and the parties will not be [b]othered for the same cause by interminable litigation." Gordon v. Gordon, 59 So.2d 40, 44 (Fla.1952).

2016Res judicata is a judicially-created principle, rooted in equity, and “will not be invoked where it would defeat the ends of justice.” State v. McBride, 848 So. 2d 287, 291 (Fla. 2003). 60 fact, it was upon this very foundation that the Florida Supreme Court rested its decision in Singleton: We must also remember that foreclosure is an equitable remedy and there may be some tension between a court’s authority to adjudicate the equities and the legal doctrine of res judicata.

2009He argues, however, that the claim should be revisited under the manifest injustice exception to the res judicata doctrine recognized in State v. McBride, 848 So.2d 287 (Fla.2003).

2024The Fraudulent Transfer Count Was Not Barred by Res Judicata Under the doctrine of res judicata, “a judgment on the merits of a controversy is conclusive as to the parties and their privies and will bar a subsequent action between the same parties on the same cause of action.” Youngblood v. Taylor, 89 So. 2d 503, 505 (Fla. 1956).

2023Under the doctrine of res judicata, “[a] judgment on the merits rendered in a former suit between the same parties or their privies, upon the same cause of action, by a court of competent jurisdiction, is conclusive not only as to every matter which was offered and received to sustain or defeat the claim, but as to every other matter which might with propriety have been litigated and determined in that action.” Fla. Dep’t of Transp. v. Juliano, 801 So. 2d 101, 105 (Fla. 2001) (quoting Kimbrell v. Paige, 448 So. 2d 1009, 1012 (Fla. 1984)). “[A] judgment on the merits will thus bar ‘a subsequent

2005This exception comes into play when application of the doctrine "would defeat the ends of justice." Id.; cf. Universal Const. Co. v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 68 So.2d 366, 369 (Fla.1953) (discussing "the salutary principle that the doctrine of res judicata should not be so rigidly applied as to defeat the ends of justice").

1997As this court stated in another paternity case presenting comparable circumstances: [W]e note the Florida Supreme Court's holding that "the [res judicata] doctrine will not be invoked where it will work an injustice ...." deCancino v. Eastern Airlines, Inc., 283 So.2d 97 (Fla.1973) (footnote omitted); see also Universal Construction Co. v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 68 So.2d 366, 369 (Fla.1953) ("Indeed, this very Court, among others, has announced the salutary principle that the doctrine of res judicata should not be so rigidly applied as to defeat the ends of justice."); Wallace v. Luxmoore, 1

2019The Bartram court explicitly stated that the "holding in Singleton was based on the conclusion that an 'acceleration and foreclosure predicated upon subsequent and different defaults present a separate and distinct issue' than a foreclosure action and acceleration based on the same default at issue in the first foreclosure action," id. at 1017 (quoting Singleton , 882 So.2d at 1007 ), and acknowledged that "because foreclosure is an equitable remedy, '[t]he ends of justice require that the doctrine of res judicata not be applied so strictly so as to prevent mortgagees from being able to challe

2019The Bartram court explicitly stated that the "holding in Singleton was based on the conclusion that an 'acceleration and foreclosure predicated upon subsequent and different defaults present a separate and distinct issue' than a foreclosure action and acceleration based on the same default at issue in the first foreclosure action," id. at 1017 (quoting Singleton , 882 So.2d at 1007 ), and acknowledged that "because foreclosure is an equitable remedy, '[t]he ends of justice require that the doctrine of res judicata not be applied so strictly so as to prevent mortgagees from being able to challe

2006We have noted that for the doctrine of res judicata to apply, several conditions must exist, which include: "identity of the thing sued for; identity of the cause of action; identity of [the] parties; and identity of the quality in the person for or against whom the claim is made." Albrecht v. State, 444 So.2d 8, 12 (Fla.1984).

2003See Albrecht v. State, 444 So.2d 8, 11-12 (Fla.1984), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in, 448 So.2d 566 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)(where second suit arises out of same cause of action and is between same parties as the first, the first judgment is conclusive as to all matters which were or could have been determined under doctrine of res judicata).

2024Indeed, the manner in which SD Construction chose to plead this affirmative defense— contending that the language of the settlement and release somehow barred 951 Harbor Drive’s lawsuit (Circuit Case No. 2017-6935-CA-01)—would necessarily cause 951 Harbor Drive to review the referenced release document which expressly excludes 951 Harbor Drive’s lawsuit from the 4 While SD Construction correctly notes that “[t]he rule against splitting causes of action is ‘an aspect of the doctrine of res judicata,’” see Tyson v. Viacom, Inc., 890 So. 2d 1205, 1209 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (citation omitted), but i

2016“The rule against splitting causes of action is ‘an aspect of the doctrine of res-judicata.’ ” Tyson v. Viacom, Inc., 890 So.2d 1205, 1210 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (en banc) (quoting Froman v. Kirland, 753 So.2d 114, 116 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)).

2016See id. at 433 (recognizing “that a ‘purely technical,’ non-merits judgment ‘may not be used as a basis for the operation of the doctrine of res judicata’ ” (quoting Kent v. Sutker, 40 So.2d 145, 147 (Fla.1949))).

2013In contrast, we have recognized that a “purely technical,” non-merits judgment “may not be used as a basis for the operation of the doctrine of res judicata.” Kent v. Sutker, 40 So.2d 145, 147 (Fla.1949). 8 The Engle judgment was a final judgment on the merits because it resolved substantive elements of the class’s claims against the Engle defendants.

1997As this court stated in another paternity case presenting comparable circumstances: [W]e note the Florida Supreme Court's holding that "the [res judicata] doctrine will not be invoked where it will work an injustice ...." deCancino v. Eastern Airlines, Inc., 283 So.2d 97 (Fla.1973) (footnote omitted); see also Universal Construction Co. v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 68 So.2d 366, 369 (Fla.1953) ("Indeed, this very Court, among others, has announced the salutary principle that the doctrine of res judicata should not be so rigidly applied as to defeat the ends of justice."); Wallace v. Luxmoore, 1

1992Having said this, however, we note the Florida Supreme Court’s holding that “the [res judicata] doctrine will not be invoked where it will work an injustice... deCancino v. Eastern Airlines, Inc., 283 So.2d 97 (Fla.1973) (footnote omitted); see also Universal Construction Co. v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 68 So.2d 366, 369 (Fla.1953) (“Indeed, this very Court, among others, has announced the salutary principle that the doctrine of res judicata should not be so rigidly applied as to defeat the ends of justice.”); Wallace v. Luxmoore, 156 Fla. 725 , 24 So.2d 302, 304 (1946) (“Stare decisis and res

1997As this court stated in another paternity case presenting comparable circumstances: [W]e note the Florida Supreme Court's holding that "the [res judicata] doctrine will not be invoked where it will work an injustice ...." deCancino v. Eastern Airlines, Inc., 283 So.2d 97 (Fla.1973) (footnote omitted); see also Universal Construction Co. v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 68 So.2d 366, 369 (Fla.1953) ("Indeed, this very Court, among others, has announced the salutary principle that the doctrine of res judicata should not be so rigidly applied as to defeat the ends of justice."); Wallace v. Luxmoore, 1

1997As this court stated in another paternity case presenting comparable circumstances: [W]e note the Florida Supreme Court's holding that "the [res judicata] doctrine will not be invoked where it will work an injustice ...." deCancino v. Eastern Airlines, Inc., 283 So.2d 97 (Fla.1973) (footnote omitted); see also Universal Construction Co. v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 68 So.2d 366, 369 (Fla.1953) ("Indeed, this very Court, among others, has announced the salutary principle that the doctrine of res judicata should not be so rigidly applied as to defeat the ends of justice."); Wallace v. Luxmoore, 1

2016See id. at 433 (recognizing “that a ‘purely technical,’ non-merits judgment ‘may not be used as a basis for the operation of the doctrine of res judicata’ ” (quoting Kent v. Sutker, 40 So.2d 145, 147 (Fla.1949))).

2013See id. at 433 (recognizing “that a ‘purely technical,’ non-merits judgment ‘may not be used as a basis for the operation of the doctrine of res judicata’ ” (quoting Kent v. Sutker, 40 So.2d 145, 147 (Fla.1949))); McCormack v. Abbott Labs., 617 F.Supp. 1521, 1524 (D.Mass.1985) (specifically noting that following decertification of a class action, individual plaintiffs are “bound by all rulings of substantive law” (emphasis added)).

2017As the Florida Supreme Court has explained: A judgment on the merits rendered in a former suit between the same parties or their privies, upon the same cause of action, by a court of competent jurisdiction, is conclusive not only as to every matter which was offered and received to sustain or defeat the claim, but as to every other matter which might with propriety have been litigated and determined in that action. -7- Kimbrell v. Paige, 448 So. 2d 1009, 1012 (Fla. 1984) (emphasis added) (quoting Wade v. Clower, 114 So. 548, 552 (1927)).

2012Kimbrell v. Paige, 448 So.2d 1009, 1012 (F1a.l984)(emphasis supplied) (quoting Wade v. Clower, 94 Fla. 817 , 114 So. 548, 552 (1927)).

2025“The doctrine of res judicata bars relitigation in a subsequent cause of action not only of claims raised, but also claims that could have been raised.” Topps v. State, 865 So. 2d 1253, 1255 (Fla. 2004) (citing Fla. Dep’t of Transp. v. Juliano, 801 So. 2d 101, 107 (Fla. 2001)).

2025“The doctrine of res judicata bars relitigation in a subsequent cause of action not only of claims raised, but also claims that could have been raised.” Topps v. State, 865 So. 2d 1253, 1255 (Fla. 2004) (citing Fla. Dep’t of Transp. v. Juliano, 801 So. 2d 101, 107 (Fla. 2001)).

2018We agree. “‘The foundation of res judicata is that a final judgment in a court of competent jurisdiction is absolute and settles all issues actually litigated in a proceeding as well as those issues that could have been litigated.’” Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Douglas, 110 So. 3d 419, 425 (Fla. 2013) (quoting Engle v. Liggett Grp., Inc., 945 So. 2d 1246, 1259 (Fla. 7 2006)); accord Youngblood v. Taylor, 89 So. 2d 503 (Fla. 1956) (“[U]nder [res judicata,] a judgment on the merits of a controversy is conclusive as to the parties and their privies and will bar a subsequent action between the same

2013The Supreme Court explained the doctrine of res judicata in Engle v. Liggett Grp., Inc., 945 So.2d 1246, 1259 (Fla.2006): A judgment on the merits rendered in a former suit between the same parties or their privies, upon the same cause of action, by a court of competent jurisdiction, is conclusive not only as to every matter which was offered and received to sustain or defeat the claim, but as to every other matter which might with propriety have been litigated and determined in that action.

1964The language in Hay v. Salisbury, 92 Fla. 446 , 109 So. 617 , cited by the appellees, indicating that matters which the parties might have litigated in a prior suit are concluded in a subsequent suit under the doctrine of res judicata, which was lifted from Ruling Case Law, is inapplicable here for two reasons.

1931The case of Hay v. Salisbury 92 Fla. 446 , 109 So. 617 , and Gray v. Gray, 91 Fla. 103 , 107 So. 261 , state the essentials of the doctrine of res judicata, as long recognized in this jurisdiction.

1964The language in Hay v. Salisbury, 92 Fla. 446 , 109 So. 617 , cited by the appellees, indicating that matters which the parties might have litigated in a prior suit are concluded in a subsequent suit under the doctrine of res judicata, which was lifted from Ruling Case Law, is inapplicable here for two reasons.

1931The case of Hay v. Salisbury 92 Fla. 446 , 109 So. 617 , and Gray v. Gray, 91 Fla. 103 , 107 So. 261 , state the essentials of the doctrine of res judicata, as long recognized in this jurisdiction.

2017As the Fifth District concluded, “[i]f a ‘new and independent right to accelerate’ exists in a res judicata analysis, there is no reason it would not also exist vis-à-vis a statute of limitations issue.” Bartram, 140 So. 3d at 1013 .

2016As the Fifth District concluded, “[i]f a ‘new and independent right to accelerate’ exists in a res judicata analysis, there is no reason it would not also exist vis-à-vis a statute of limitations issue.” Bartram, 140 So. 3d at 1013 .

1997As this court stated in another paternity case presenting comparable circumstances: [W]e note the Florida Supreme Court's holding that "the [res judicata] doctrine will not be invoked where it will work an injustice ...." deCancino v. Eastern Airlines, Inc., 283 So.2d 97 (Fla.1973) (footnote omitted); see also Universal Construction Co. v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 68 So.2d 366, 369 (Fla.1953) ("Indeed, this very Court, among others, has announced the salutary principle that the doctrine of res judicata should not be so rigidly applied as to defeat the ends of justice."); Wallace v. Luxmoore, 1

1992Having said this, however, we note the Florida Supreme Court’s holding that “the [res judicata] doctrine will not be invoked where it will work an injustice... deCancino v. Eastern Airlines, Inc., 283 So.2d 97 (Fla.1973) (footnote omitted); see also Universal Construction Co. v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 68 So.2d 366, 369 (Fla.1953) (“Indeed, this very Court, among others, has announced the salutary principle that the doctrine of res judicata should not be so rigidly applied as to defeat the ends of justice.”); Wallace v. Luxmoore, 156 Fla. 725 , 24 So.2d 302, 304 (1946) (“Stare decisis and res

2019Therefore, "[u]nder Singleton , subsequent defaults allow for subsequent accelerations regardless of the nature of a prior dismissal." Id. at 945 ; see also PNC Bank, N.A. v. Neal , 147 So.3d 32 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) ("[T]he dismissal with prejudice of PNC Bank's foreclosure action against the Neals does not preclude PNC Bank from instituting a new foreclosure action based on a different act or a new date of default not alleged in the dismissed action."); Star Funding Sols., LLC v. Krondes , 101 So.3d 403 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) ("A new default, based on a different act or date of default not allege

2015This is because a “subsequent and separate alleged default create[s] a new and independent right in the mortgagee to accelerate payment on the note' in a subsequent foreclosure action.” Id. at 1008 ; U.S. Bank, Nat’l Ass’n v. Bartram, 140 So.3d 1007, 1014 (Fla. 6th DCA) (recognizing that the discussion in Singleton was limited to the application of the res judicata doctrine, but concluding that Singleton’s analysis is equally applicable to the statute of limitations issue), review granted, 160 So.3d 892 (Fla.2014); see also Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Robinson, 168 So.3d 1279, 1280 (Fla. 5th DCA

2019Therefore, "[u]nder Singleton , subsequent defaults allow for subsequent accelerations regardless of the nature of a prior dismissal." Id. at 945 ; see also PNC Bank, N.A. v. Neal , 147 So.3d 32 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) ("[T]he dismissal with prejudice of PNC Bank's foreclosure action against the Neals does not preclude PNC Bank from instituting a new foreclosure action based on a different act or a new date of default not alleged in the dismissed action."); Star Funding Sols., LLC v. Krondes , 101 So.3d 403 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) ("A new default, based on a different act or date of default not allege

2015This is because a “subsequent and separate alleged default create[s] a new and independent right in the mortgagee to accelerate payment on the note' in a subsequent foreclosure action.” Id. at 1008 ; U.S. Bank, Nat’l Ass’n v. Bartram, 140 So.3d 1007, 1014 (Fla. 6th DCA) (recognizing that the discussion in Singleton was limited to the application of the res judicata doctrine, but concluding that Singleton’s analysis is equally applicable to the statute of limitations issue), review granted, 160 So.3d 892 (Fla.2014); see also Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Robinson, 168 So.3d 1279, 1280 (Fla. 5th DCA

2016“The rule against splitting causes of action is ‘an aspect of the doctrine of res-judicata.’ ” Tyson v. Viacom, Inc., 890 So.2d 1205, 1210 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (en banc) (quoting Froman v. Kirland, 753 So.2d 114, 116 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)).

2006In Tyson v. Viacom, Inc., 890 So.2d 1205, 1210-11 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005), we said: The rule against splitting causes of action is “an aspect of the doctrine of res judicata.” Froman [v. Kirland, 753 So.2d 114 , 116] (citing Alvarez v. Nestor Salesco, Inc., 695 So.2d 941 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)).