claim preclusion doctrine in Massachusetts

2001See Bagley v. Moxley, 407 Mass. at 637 ; Anderson v. Phoenix Investment Counsel of Boston, Inc., 387 Mass. at 449 .

1997The doctrine of claim preclusion “prohibits the maintenance of an action based on the same claim[s] that [were] the subject of an earlier action between the same parties or their privies.” Bagley v. Moxley, 407 Mass. 633, 636 (1990).

2010Corp., 48 Mass.App.Ct. at 10 n.8, citations omitted; see also Nazzaro v. Richard O’Neil Jr. & Assocs., PC, 2010 LEXIS 19 , at *4 (Mass.App.Ct. 2010) (unpublished decision pursuant to 1:28) (dismissal of complaint under Mass.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) based on statute of limitations was dismissal “on the merits” for purposes of res judicata).

2007Corp. v. A. Anthony Tappe and Assocs., Inc., 48 Mass.App.Ct. 1, 4 (1999), quoting Gloucester Marine Rys.

2014But the fact that the judge considered the parties’ actions in award- *231 ing funds does not alter the claim preclusion analysis. 11 See id. at 24 (“Although a judge in awarding alimony and dividing marital property must consider, among other things, the conduct of the parties during the marriage, the purposes for which these awards are made do not include compensating a party in damages for injuries suffered” [citation omitted]).

2010Heacock v. Heacock, 402 Mass. 21, 23 (1988). “[Claim preclusion] presupposes that a claimant has had an opportunity to assert his claims against a given defendant, and either has failed to assert those claims or has asserted the claims and had them adjudicated adversely.” Day v. Kerkorian, 61 Mass. App. Ct. 804, 811 (2004).

2013“Under the doctrine of claim preclusion, a final judgment forecloses ‘successive litigation of the very same claim, whether or not relitigation of the claim raises the same issues as the earlier suit.’ ” Id.., quoting New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742, 748 (2001).

2013See Aronovitz v. Fafard, 78 Mass. App. Ct. 1, 5 (2010); Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 87 (1982). 1 In Federal court, “[t]he preclusive effect of a judgment is defined by claim preclusion and issue preclusion, which are collectively referred to as ‘res judicata.’ Under the doctrine of claim preclusion, a final judgment forecloses ‘successive litigation of the very same claim, whether or not relitigation of the claim raises the same issues as the earlier suit.” Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. at 892 , quoting from New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742, 748 (2001) (footnote omitted).

2008Under the doctrine of res judicata, “for claim preclusion to bar [a plaintiffs] action, three elements are required: (1) the identity or privity of the parties to the present and prior actions; (2) identity of the cause of action; and (3) prior final judgment on the merits.” Gloucester Marine Railways Corp. v. Charles Parisi, Inc., 36 Mass.App.Ct. 386,390 (1994) (holding that the plaintiff failed to revive a claim that it could have previously presented in a prior action).

1998Corp. v. Charles Parisi, Inc., 36 Mass. App. Ct. 386, 391 (1994).

2025Id. at 843-844 . 7 Here, the Bankerts were barred from litigating Deutsche Bank's right to foreclose under the doctrine of claim preclusion, as each of the three elements of claim preclusion was satisfied in this case.

2024Kobrin v. Board of Registration in Medicine, 444 Mass. 837, 843 (2005).

2024Ass'n, 481 Mass. 1036, 1037 (2019).

2023We affirm the resulting judgment of dismissal, although we base our decision not on claim preclusion 5 but on the closely related doctrine of issue preclusion.3 See Rasheed v. Commissioner of Correction, 446 Mass. 463, 478 (2006) ("Where we find an adequate alternative ground on which to affirm summary judgment, we may proceed to do so"). 1.

2013See Aronovitz v. Fafard, 78 Mass. App. Ct. 1, 5 (2010); Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 87 (1982). 1 In Federal court, “[t]he preclusive effect of a judgment is defined by claim preclusion and issue preclusion, which are collectively referred to as ‘res judicata.’ Under the doctrine of claim preclusion, a final judgment forecloses ‘successive litigation of the very same claim, whether or not relitigation of the claim raises the same issues as the earlier suit.” Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. at 892 , quoting from New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742, 748 (2001) (footnote omitted).

2013See Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90, 94 (1980) (under claim preclusion, “a final judgment on the merits of an action precludes the parties or their privies from relitigating issues that were or could have been raised in that action”).

2010Heacock v. Heacock, 402 Mass. 21, 23 (1988). “[Claim preclusion] presupposes that a claimant has had an opportunity to assert his claims against a given defendant, and either has failed to assert those claims or has asserted the claims and had them adjudicated adversely.” Day v. Kerkorian, 61 Mass. App. Ct. 804, 811 (2004).

2009See Carey v. New England Organ Bank, 446 Mass. 270, 285 (2006).

2007See Aspinall v. Philip Morris Cos., 442 Mass. 381 , 397 n.19 (2004).

2007Serv’s., 47 Mass.App.Ct. 625, 632 (1999) ("The two actions launched... are an example of claim splitting, warranting invocation of the doctrine of claim preclusion”); Roche v. Roche, 22 Mass.App.Ct. 306, 309 (1986) (“what the proceedings present below is a question of claim splitting resulting in claim preclusion”); Mongeau v. Boutelle, 10 Mass.App.Ct. 246, 251 (1980) (“the prohibition against claim splitting ... is sometimes called ‘claim preclusion’ ”).

2007Serv’s., 47 Mass.App.Ct. 625, 632 (1999) ("The two actions launched... are an example of claim splitting, warranting invocation of the doctrine of claim preclusion”); Roche v. Roche, 22 Mass.App.Ct. 306, 309 (1986) (“what the proceedings present below is a question of claim splitting resulting in claim preclusion”); Mongeau v. Boutelle, 10 Mass.App.Ct. 246, 251 (1980) (“the prohibition against claim splitting ... is sometimes called ‘claim preclusion’ ”).

2007Serv’s., 47 Mass.App.Ct. 625, 632 (1999) ("The two actions launched... are an example of claim splitting, warranting invocation of the doctrine of claim preclusion”); Roche v. Roche, 22 Mass.App.Ct. 306, 309 (1986) (“what the proceedings present below is a question of claim splitting resulting in claim preclusion”); Mongeau v. Boutelle, 10 Mass.App.Ct. 246, 251 (1980) (“the prohibition against claim splitting ... is sometimes called ‘claim preclusion’ ”).

2007The principle of claim splitting provides that “the entry of a ‘valid and final judgment extinguishes ... all rights of a plaintiff to remedies against the defendant with respect to all or any part of the transaction, or series of transactions, out of which the action arose.’ ” Boyd v. Jamaica Plain Co-Operative Bank, 7 Mass.App.Ct. 153, 163 (1979), quoting Restatement (Second) of Judgments §61(1) (Tent.

2006The doctrine of claim preclusion bars a claim when the moving parly establishes “(1) the identity or privily of the parties to the present and prior actions, (2) the identity of the cause of action, and (3) a prior final judgment on the merits.” DaLuz v. Dep’t of Correction, 434 Mass. 40, 45 (2001).

2004See id.; United States v. American Heart Research Found., Inc., 996 F.2d 7, 11 (1st Cir. 1993).

1999Velasquez v. Franz, 123 N.J. 498, 505-513 (1991).