Edmondson v. Dressman

Decision Date05 April 1985
PartiesJoyce A. EDMONDSON, Administratrix of the Estate of Clifford A. Edmondson, Deceased v. Frank L. DRESSMAN, et al. 83-1307.
CourtAlabama Supreme Court

Leon Garmon, Gadsden, for appellant.

Robert G. Tate and J. Hunter Phillips of Thomas, Taliaferro, Forman, Burr & Murray, Birmingham and James C. Stivender of Inzer, Suttle, Swann & Stivender, Gadsden, for appellees Republic Steel Corp. and Frank L. Dressman.

Curtis Wright of Dortch, Wright & Russell, Gadsden, for appellee Richard Carr.

FAULKNER, Justice.

This is an appeal from an order granting a motion to dismiss. This case was previously before this court on a petition for writ of mandamus. See Ex parte Edmondson, 451 So.2d 290 (Ala.1984).

On July 17, 1980, Clifford Edmondson died as the result of an industrial accident. He was employed as a brakeman on Republic Steel Corporation's interplant railroad when the accident resulting in his death took place. Edmondson was survived by his widow, the plaintiff in the case at bar, and by two minor sons. Following the accident, Mrs. Edmondson entered into an agreement with Republic Steel purporting to settle for $150,000.00 her claims against Republic Steel arising out of her husband's death. In exchange for Republic Steel's agreement to pay her $150,000.00, Mrs. Edmondson executed a release of Republic Steel and its agents for any and all actions arising out of the death of her husband. In connection with the settlement, an action was filed in the Circuit Court of Etowah County seeking damages for Edmondson's death under the Federal Employers' Liability Act. Although the complaint filed in that case indicates that Mrs. Edmondson was acting as her own attorney, she claims that the complaint was drafted by the attorney who represented Republic Steel in that proceeding. On September 8, 1980, the Circuit Court of Etowah County entered a consent judgment in Edmondson's favor in the amount of $150,000.00.

On July 15, 1983, an attorney filed an action on Mrs. Edmondson's behalf in the United States District Court. Her complaint contained four counts. The first two counts were wrongful death actions against Republic Steel based on the Federal Employers' Liability Act and the Federal Safety Appliance Act. Count three claimed damages for fraud against Republic Steel and one of its employees, Frank Dressman, in connection with alleged representations made during the negotiations leading up to the settlement. In count four Mrs. Edmondson claimed that an attorney, J. Richard Carr, had undertaken to advise her regarding her claims against Republic Steel and that he negligently advised her to settle her claims for an unreasonable amount.

The United States District Court dismissed the action for lack of jurisdiction. There was no diversity of citizenship which would support the common law claims, and the counts based on the FELA and the FSAA were barred by the prior judgment. The court opined that if Mrs. Edmondson could successfully attack the prior judgment based on fraud she would be entitled to proceed in her FELA and FSAA actions.

On September 22, 1983, Mrs. Edmondson filed this action in the Jefferson County Circuit Court. The allegations of the complaint in this case are substantially the same as those in the federal action. The Jefferson County Circuit Court entered an order transferring the case to Etowah County. Although venue was proper in Jefferson County, the court concluded that it would be proper to present the matter to the Etowah County Circuit Court because it would be necessary to attack the judgment rendered in Etowah County under the provisions of Rule 60(b), A.R.Civ.P., before proceeding. Edmondson filed a petition for writ of mandamus seeking to prohibit the Jefferson County court from transferring the case. This Court denied the writ. See Ex parte Edmondson, supra.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss in the Circuit Court of Etowah County on the grounds that the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, that the action was res judicata, that the applicable statute of limitations had run, that the plaintiff had released the defendants, that she was guilty of laches, and that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. The circuit court entered an order granting the defendants' motion, and the plaintiff appeals.

With regard to counts one and two, we agree with the federal court and with the defendants that the FELA and FSAA claims against Republic Steel are res judicata. Plaintiff cannot proceed with an action against the same parties for the same claim which was previously litigated without first obtaining relief from the judgment by way of a Rule 60(b) motion or an independent action. Ex parte Edmondson, 451 So.2d 290 (Ala.1984).

Count three alleges that Dressman, acting on behalf of Republic Steel, fraudulently induced Mrs. Edmondson to accept the $150,000.00 settlement. She claims that...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 cases
  • Thomas v. Bethea
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals
    • September 1, 1998
    ...case, has been accepted by nearly every court that has faced the issue. In addition to the cases cited above, see Edmondson v. Dressman, 469 So.2d 571 (Ala.1985); Callahan v. Clark, 321 Ark. 376, 901 S.W.2d 842 (1995); Bill Branch Chev. v. Philip L. Burnett, 555 So.2d 455 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1......
  • Grayson v. Wofsey, Rosen, Kweskin and Kuriansky
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • August 23, 1994
    ...malpractice claims arising from their negligence in settled cases if the attorney's conduct has damaged the client. See Edmondson v. Dressman, 469 So.2d 571 (Ala.1985); Bill Branch Chevrolet, Inc. v. Burnett, 555 So.2d 455 (Fla.App.1990); McCarthy v. Pedersen & Houpt, 250 Ill.App.3d 166, 19......
  • Prande v. Bell
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • September 1, 1994
    ...Braud v. New England Ins. Co., 534 So.2d 13 (La.Ct.App.1988); Fishman v. Brooks, 396 Mass. 643, 487 N.E.2d 1377 (1986); Edmondson v. Dressman, 469 So.2d 571 (Ala.1985). The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has held that a legal malpractice action was not barred by collateral estoppel even when......
  • Fishman v. Brooks
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • January 30, 1986
    ...a client to settle a claim for an amount below what a properly represented client would have accepted. See, e.g., Edmondson v. Dressman, 469 So.2d 571, 574 (Ala.1985); Cook v. Connolly, 366 N.W.2d 287, 292 (Minn.1985); Rodriguez v. Horton, 95 N.M. 356, 359-360, 622 P.2d 261 (Ct.App.1980); H......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • The Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act,
    • United States
    • Connecticut Bar Association Connecticut Bar Journal No. 69, January 1994
    • Invalid date
    ...See infra, note 176. 37. See Public Act 94-71. 38. 231 Conn. 168, 646 A.2d 195 (1994). 39. Id. at 175, citing Edmonson v. Dressman, 469 So. 2d 571, (Ala. 1985); Bill Branch Chevrolet, Inc. v. Burnett, 555 So. 2d 455 (Fla. App 1990); McCarthy v. Pedersen & Houpt, 250 Ill.App. 3d 166, 621 N.E......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT