Egbert v. Curtis, 85-CA-878-S
| Decision Date | 23 August 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 85-CA-878-S,85-CA-878-S |
| Parties | Ray Evans EGBERT, Jr. and Mary Ann Egbert, His Wife, Appellants, v. Joe CURTIS, d/b/a Curtis Construction Co., Appellee. |
| Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
Russell K. Johnson, Eddyville, for appellants.
J. Luke Quertermous, Princeton, for appellee.
Before McDONALD, CLAYTON and DUNN, JJ.
OPINION AFFIRMING AND ORDER
Princeton Federal Savings and Loan Association sued the appellants, the Egberts, for the balance due on their alleged default of their note and for foreclosure of its mortgage security. The Egberts, as third party plaintiffs, joined the appellee, Joe Curtis, their building contractor, as third party defendant, alleging breach of their building contract and seeking damages as well as the return of funds from their note proceeds paid to Curtis, allegedly prematurely, by the plaintiff Savings and Loan. Curtis pleaded res judicata because of judgment in the small claims division, Caldwell District Court, against appellant, Ray Egbert, Jr., for $64.30 plus $25.50 costs on his suit on the same contract with Egbert who did not file a counterclaim for his claim advanced here. In the instant case, summary judgment was granted by the trial court to Curtis against appellant, Ray Egbert. It's from this summary judgment this appeal is prosecuted.
The only issue before us is whether or not the Caldwell District Court Small Claims judgment is res judicata as to appellant Ray Egbert's claim against Curtis. We hold that it is and, hence, affirm the trial court.
The doctrine of res judicata is rather well expressed in Wallace v. Ashland Oil & Transportation Company, Inc., Ky., 305 S.W.2d 541, 543 (1957).
Generally it may be said a plea of res judicata is a bar to a subsequent action where a former judgment has been rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction between the same parties upon the same matter directly involved in the prior suit. 30 Am.Jur. "Judgments" Sec. 161, p. 908. The same text in Sec. 167, p. 912, and Sec. 178, p. 920, says the doctrine of res judicata is based upon estoppel and precludes the relitigation of the same facts and issues. And that text in Sec. 198, p. 939, points out the application of the doctrine is not dependent upon the correctness of the first judgment.
It has a subsidiary rule that a cause of action may not be split and tried piecemeal. Both rest on the foundation that issues which have been once litigated cannot be the subject matter of later action. Both rules are necessary in the administration of justice. Hays v. Sturgill, 302 Ky. 31, 193 S.W.2d 648 (1946).
Stated another way the subsidiary rule makes res judicata applicable not only to the issues disposed of in the first action, but...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jones v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
...The doctrine of res judicata has a subsidiary rule that a cause of action may not be split and tried piecemeal. Egbert v. Curtis, 695 S.W.2d 123, 124 (Ky.App., 1985), citing Hays v. Sturgill, 302 Ky. 31, 34, 193 S.W.2d 648 (1946). See also, e.g., Kirchner v. Riherd, 702 S.W.2d 33, 34 (Ky., ......
-
Carman v. First Nat. Bank of Louisville, Civ. A. No. 84-0016 L(S).
...in the first action and which in the exercise of reasonable diligence might have been brought forward at the time." Egbert v. Curtis, 695 S.W.2d 123, 124 (Ky.App.1985), citing Hays v. Sturgill, 302 Ky. 31, 193 S.W.2d 648 However, if these causes of action are exclusively within federal juri......
-
Coomer v. Csx Transp. Inc
...NAACP v. Los Angeles Unified Sch. Dist., 750 F.2d 731, 739 (9th Cir.1984) (en banc) (applying California law). 24. Egbert v. Curtis, 695 S.W.2d 123, 124 (Ky.App.1985). Manning, 953 F.2d at 1360 (emphasis in original) (footnote omitted). 26. See Manning, 953 F.2d at 1360 (“Under the Federal ......
-
Vincent v. Clean Water Action Project, 95CA1130
...judgment precludes further litigation in district court despite monetary limit of small claims court's jurisdiction); Egbert v. Curtis, 695 S.W.2d 123 (Ky.App.1985)(res judicata applied to compulsory counterclaims which should have been brought in previous small claims action); Chedid v. Le......