res judicata doctrine in Michigan

2025“Res judicata requires that (1) the prior action was decided on the merits, (2) the decree in the prior action was a final decision, (3) the matter contested in the second case was or could have been resolved in the first, and (4) both actions involved the same parties or their privies.” Peterson Novelties, Inc v City of Berkley, 259 Mich App 1, 10 ; 672 NW2d 351 (2003). “ ‘Michigan courts have broadly applied the doctrine of res judicata’ ” and “ ‘have barred, not only claims already litigated, but every claim arising from the same transaction that the parties, exercising reasonable diligence

2025“Res judicata requires that (1) the prior action was decided on the merits, (2) the decree in the prior action was a final decision, (3) the matter contested in the second case was or could have been resolved in the first, and (4) both actions involved the same parties or their privies.” Peterson Novelties, 259 Mich App at 10 . “ ‘Michigan courts have broadly applied the doctrine of res judicata’ ” and “ ‘have barred, not only claims already litigated, but every claim arising from the same transaction that the parties, exercising reasonable diligence, could have -9- raised but did not.’ ” C-Sp

2025As our Supreme Court also explained in Pierson Sand & Gravel, Inc v Keeler Brass Co, 460 Mich 372, 380-381 ; 596 NW2d 153 (1999), regarding the doctrine of res judicata: “The doctrine of res judicata was judicially created in order to ‘relieve parties of the cost and vexation of multiple lawsuits, conserve judicial resources, and, by preventing inconsistent decisions, encourage reliance on adjudication.’ ” Hackley v Hackley, 426 Mich 582, 584 ; 395 NW2d 906 (1986), quoting Allen v McCurry, 449 US 90, 94 ; 101 S Ct 411 ; 66 L Ed 2d 308 (1980).

2025As our Supreme Court also explained in Pierson Sand & Gravel, Inc v Keeler Brass Co, 460 Mich 372, 380-381 ; 596 NW2d 153 (1999), regarding the doctrine of res judicata: “The doctrine of res judicata was judicially created in order to ‘relieve parties of the cost and vexation of multiple lawsuits, conserve judicial resources, and, by preventing inconsistent decisions, encourage reliance on adjudication.’ ” Hackley v Hackley, 426 Mich 582, 584 ; 395 NW2d 906 (1986), quoting Allen v McCurry, 449 US 90, 94 ; 101 S Ct 411 ; 66 L Ed 2d 308 (1980).

2023RES JUDICATA “Under the doctrine of res judicata, ‘a final judgment rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction on the merits is conclusive as to the rights of the parties and their privies, and, as to them, constitutes an absolute bar to a subsequent action involving the same claim, demand or cause of action.’ ” Wayne Co v Detroit, 233 Mich App 275, 277 ; 590 NW2d 619 (1998), quoting Black’s Law Dictionary (6th ed, 1990), p 1305.

2023RES JUDICATA “Under the doctrine of res judicata, ‘a final judgment rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction on the merits is conclusive as to the rights of the parties and their privies, and, as to them, constitutes an absolute bar to a subsequent action involving the same claim, demand or cause of action.’ ” Wayne Co v Detroit, 233 Mich App 275, 277 ; 590 NW2d 619 (1998), quoting Black’s Law Dictionary (6th ed, 1990), p 1305.

2026“We review de novo both a trial court’s decision on a motion for summary disposition and its application of the legal doctrine of res judicata.” Garrett v Washington, 314 Mich App 436, 440-441 ; 886 NW2d 762 (2016) (citation and quotation marks omitted).

2026“We review de novo both a trial court’s decision on a motion for summary disposition and its application of the legal doctrine of res judicata.” Garrett v Washington, 314 Mich App 436, 440-441 ; 886 NW2d 762 (2016) (citation and quotation marks omitted).

1988However, it has long been the law of this state, starting with the leading case of Jacobson v Miller, 41 Mich 90 ; 1 NW 1013 (1879), that the doctrine of res judicata applies not only to facts previously litigated, but also to points of law which were necessarily adjudicated in determining and deciding the subject matter of the litigation. [Hlady, supra, p 376 .] There is no principled distinction between Hlady and the instant case.

1988However, it has long been the law of this state, starting with the leading case of Jacobson v Miller, 41 Mich 90 ; 1 NW 1013 (1879), that the doctrine of res judicata applies not only to facts previously litigated, but also to points of law which were necessarily adjudicated in determining and deciding the subject matter of the litigation. [Hlady, supra, p 376 .] There is no principled distinction between Hlady and the instant case.

2022The doctrine of res judicata applies when “(1) there has been a prior decision on the merits, (2) the issue was either actually resolved in the first case or could have been resolved in the first case if the parties, exercising reasonable diligence, had brought it forward, and (3) both actions were between the same parties or their privies.” Bennett v Mackinac Bridge Authority, 289 Mich App 616, 630 ; 808 NW2d 471 (2010) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

2022The doctrine of res judicata applies when “(1) there has been a prior decision on the merits, (2) the issue was either actually resolved in the first case or could have been resolved in the first case if the parties, exercising reasonable diligence, had brought it forward, and (3) both actions were between the same parties or their privies.” Bennett v Mackinac Bridge Authority, 289 Mich App 616, 630 ; 808 NW2d 471 (2010) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

2016Like the doctrine of res judicata, “[c]ollateral estoppel is designed to avoid relitigation of claims, and to prevent vexation, confusion, chaos and the inefficient use of judicial resources[.]” Bd of Co Rd Com’rs for Co of Eaton v Schultz, 205 Mich App 371, 377 ; 521 NW2d 847 (1994).

2016Like the doctrine of res judicata, “[c]ollateral estoppel is designed to avoid relitigation of claims, and to prevent vexation, confusion, chaos and the inefficient use of judicial resources[.]” Bd of Co Rd Com’rs for Co of Eaton v Schultz, 205 Mich App 371, 377 ; 521 NW2d 847 (1994).

1991Such matters were not "adjudicable” at the time of the first hearing. [Id., p 184, citing Hlady, supra.] Applying the reasoning in Thompson to this case, we find that plaintiffs claim for total and permanent disability is not barred by the doctrine of res judicata.

1988However, it has long been the law of this state, starting with the leading case of Jacobson v Miller, 41 Mich 90 ; 1 NW 1013 (1879), that the doctrine of res judicata applies not only to facts previously litigated, but also to points of law which were necessarily adjudicated in determining and deciding the subject matter of the litigation. [Hlady, supra, p 376 .] There is no principled distinction between Hlady and the instant case.

2023The doctrine bars a second, subsequent action when “(1) the first action was decided on the merits, (2) the matter contested in the second action was or could have been resolved in the first, and (3) both actions involve the same parties or their privies.” Verbrugghe v Select Specialty Hosp-Macomb Co, Inc (On Remand), 279 Mich App 741, 744 ; 760 NW2d 583 (2008) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

2023The doctrine bars a second, subsequent action when “(1) the first action was decided on the merits, (2) the matter contested in the second action was or could have been resolved in the first, and (3) both actions involve the same parties or their privies.” Verbrugghe v Select Specialty Hosp-Macomb Co, Inc (On Remand), 279 Mich App 741, 744 ; 760 NW2d 583 (2008) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

2014ANALYSIS A. RES JUDICATA The doctrine of res judicata, also referred to as “claim preclusion,”5 “precludes relitigation of a claim when it is predicated on the same underlying transaction that was litigated in a prior case.” Duncan v Michigan, 300 Mich App 176, 194 ; 832 NW2d 761 (2013) (emphasis added).6 Specifically, res judicata bars a subsequent action when “(1) the first action was decided on the merits, (2) the matter contested in the second action was or could have been resolved in the first, and (3) both actions involve the same parties or their privies.” Estes v Titus, 481 Mich 573, 5

2014ANALYSIS A. RES JUDICATA The doctrine of res judicata, also referred to as “claim preclusion,”5 “precludes relitigation of a claim when it is predicated on the same underlying transaction that was litigated in a prior case.” Duncan v Michigan, 300 Mich App 176, 194 ; 832 NW2d 761 (2013) (emphasis added).6 Specifically, res judicata bars a subsequent action when “(1) the first action was decided on the merits, (2) the matter contested in the second action was or could have been resolved in the first, and (3) both actions involve the same parties or their privies.” Estes v Titus, 481 Mich 573, 5

2025This Court has taken a broad approach to the doctrine of res judicata, holding that it bars not only claims already litigated, but also every claim arising from the same transaction that the parties, exercising reasonable diligence, -5- could have raised but did not. [Adair v State, 470 Mich 105, 121 ; 680 NW2d 386 (2004) (citation omitted).] The “doctrine of res judicata is a judicially created doctrine that serves to relieve parties of the cost and aggravation of multiple lawsuits, conserve judicial resources, and encourage reliance on adjudication by preventing inconsistent decisions.” Adam

2024Plaintiffs focus on the third element, pointing to the following discussion in Adam, 311 Mich App at 532 -533: Michigan's broad interpretation of the third element of the res judicata doctrine has been referred to as a “same transaction test,” as distinguished from a “same evidence test.” Adair, 470 Mich at 123–125.

2023CASE EVALUATION ACCEPTANCE We further conclude that CAM Constr v Lake Edgewood Condo Ass’n, 465 Mich 549 ; 640 NW2d 256 (2002), provides an alternate basis to affirm the trial court’s dismissal order.5 See Gleason v Dep’t of Transp, 256 Mich App 1, 3 ; 662 NW2d 822 (2003). 5 The CAM Constr decision did not apply the doctrine of res judicata.

2023CASE EVALUATION ACCEPTANCE We further conclude that CAM Constr v Lake Edgewood Condo Ass’n, 465 Mich 549 ; 640 NW2d 256 (2002), provides an alternate basis to affirm the trial court’s dismissal order.5 See Gleason v Dep’t of Transp, 256 Mich App 1, 3 ; 662 NW2d 822 (2003). 5 The CAM Constr decision did not apply the doctrine of res judicata.

1987In Tucker v Rohrback [ 13 Mich 73, 75 (1864)], the Supreme Court delineated three prerequisites for a prior judgment to constitute a bar in a subsequent action: (1) the former action must have been decided on the merits; (2) the same matter contested-in the second action must have been decided in the first; and (3) the two actions must be between the same parties or privies. [Ward v DAIIE, 115 Mich App 30, 37 ; 320 NW2d 280 (1982).] Michigan follows a broad application of the doctrine of res judicata, barring both those claims actually litigated in the prior action and those claims which could

1987In Tucker v Rohrback [ 13 Mich 73, 75 (1864)], the Supreme Court delineated three prerequisites for a prior judgment to constitute a bar in a subsequent action: (1) the former action must have been decided on the merits; (2) the same matter contested-in the second action must have been decided in the first; and (3) the two actions must be between the same parties or privies. [Ward v DAIIE, 115 Mich App 30, 37 ; 320 NW2d 280 (1982).] Michigan follows a broad application of the doctrine of res judicata, barring both those claims actually litigated in the prior action and those claims which could

1986This Court has held that, for the doctrine of res judicata to apply, three prerequisites must be found: (1) the prior action must have been decided on its merits, (2) the issues raised in the second case must have been resolved in the first, and (3) both *445 actions must have involved the same parties or their privies. [San Joaquin County, California v Dewey, 105 Mich App 122, 130-131 ; 306 NW2d 418 (1981).] In this case, summary proceedings were commenced in district court on the land contract.

1986This Court has held that, for the doctrine of res judicata to apply, three prerequisites must be found: (1) the prior action must have been decided on its merits, (2) the issues raised in the second case must have been resolved in the first, and (3) both *445 actions must have involved the same parties or their privies. [San Joaquin County, California v Dewey, 105 Mich App 122, 130-131 ; 306 NW2d 418 (1981).] In this case, summary proceedings were commenced in district court on the land contract.

2022The doctrine of res judicata applies where: (1) there has been a prior decision on the merits, (2) the issue was either actually resolved in the first case or could have been resolved in the first case if the parties, exercising reasonable diligence, had brought it forward, and (3) both actions were between the same parties or their privies. [Paige v Sterling Heights, 476 Mich 495 , 521-522 n 46; 720 NW2d 219 (2006).] “In order for a prior judgment to operate as a bar to a subsequent proceeding, three requirements must be satisfied: (1) the subject matter of the second action must be the same;

2022The doctrine of res judicata applies where: (1) there has been a prior decision on the merits, (2) the issue was either actually resolved in the first case or could have been resolved in the first case if the parties, exercising reasonable diligence, had brought it forward, and (3) both actions were between the same parties or their privies. [Paige v Sterling Heights, 476 Mich 495 , 521-522 n 46; 720 NW2d 219 (2006).] “In order for a prior judgment to operate as a bar to a subsequent proceeding, three requirements must be satisfied: (1) the subject matter of the second action must be the same;

2022The doctrine of res judicata applies where: (1) there has been a prior decision on the merits, (2) the issue was either actually resolved in the first case or could have been resolved in the first case if the parties, exercising reasonable diligence, had brought it forward, and (3) both actions were between the same parties or their privies. [Paige v Sterling Heights, 476 Mich 495 , 521-522 n 46; 720 NW2d 219 (2006).] “In order for a prior judgment to operate as a bar to a subsequent proceeding, three requirements must be satisfied: (1) the subject matter of the second action must be the same;

2022The doctrine of res judicata applies where: (1) there has been a prior decision on the merits, (2) the issue was either actually resolved in the first case or could have been resolved in the first case if the parties, exercising reasonable diligence, had brought it forward, and (3) both actions were between the same parties or their privies. [Paige v Sterling Heights, 476 Mich 495 , 521-522 n 46; 720 NW2d 219 (2006).] “In order for a prior judgment to operate as a bar to a subsequent proceeding, three requirements must be satisfied: (1) the subject matter of the second action must be the same;

2021However, “when the federal claim in a federal action is dismissed before trial and it is clear that the federal court would have declined to exercise jurisdiction over a related state claim that could have been raised in the federal action through pendent jurisdiction, a subsequent action in state court on the state claim that would have been dismissed without prejudice in the prior federal action is not barred by the doctrine of res judicata.” Bergeron v Busch, 228 Mich App 618, 627 ; 579 NW2d 124 (1998).

2021However, “when the federal claim in a federal action is dismissed before trial and it is clear that the federal court would have declined to exercise jurisdiction over a related state claim that could have been raised in the federal action through pendent jurisdiction, a subsequent action in state court on the state claim that would have been dismissed without prejudice in the prior federal action is not barred by the doctrine of res judicata.” Bergeron v Busch, 228 Mich App 618, 627 ; 579 NW2d 124 (1998).

2021The common law, which includes the doctrine of res judicata, William Beaumont Hosp v Wass, 315 Mich App 392, 398 ; 889 NW2d 745 (2015), governs unless it has been abrogated by a statute, Albro v Allen, 434 Mich 271 , 286 n 6; 454 NW2d 85 (1990).

2021The common law, which includes the doctrine of res judicata, William Beaumont Hosp v Wass, 315 Mich App 392, 398 ; 889 NW2d 745 (2015), governs unless it has been abrogated by a statute, Albro v Allen, 434 Mich 271 , 286 n 6; 454 NW2d 85 (1990).

2019See Weymers, 454 Mich at 659-660 ; Fyke, 390 Mich at 659, 663 ; Capital Mtg Corp, 142 Mich App at 536 . 3.

2007Id.