Hochstadt v. Orange Broadcast, 90-2752
Citation | 588 So.2d 51 |
Decision Date | 29 October 1991 |
Docket Number | No. 90-2752,90-2752 |
Parties | A.M. HOCHSTADT, Appellant, v. ORANGE BROADCAST, etc., et al., Appellees. 588 So.2d 51, 16 Fla. L. Week. D2760 |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Norman Malinski, Miami, for appellant.
Corlett, Killian, Ober & Levi and Love Phipps, Miami, for appellees.
Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and NESBITT and JORGENSON, JJ.
A.M. Hochstadt appeals from an order of final summary judgment entered on the basis of collateral estoppel. We affirm.
In 1984, Hochstadt loaned $53,400 to his nephew Michael Siegel, d/b/a Pacific Metrocom Northwest. The loan was made payable to Orange Broadcast and VanThorre. Hochstadt took a personal guaranty of the debt from Siegel and Doug VanThorre. In June, 1985, $38,000 of the loan was repaid; the remaining $15,400 was repaid to Hochstadt in the form of equipment in 1986.
In 1988, Hochstadt sued Siegel, VanThorre, and Orange Broadcast in Dade County, claiming that a portion of the loan had not been repaid and alleging fraud. While the Dade County action was pending, Siegel filed for bankruptcy in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. The Dade County suit was stayed pending the outcome of the bankruptcy action.
In the bankruptcy action, Hochstadt sued Siegel, again alleging that the 1984 loan remained unpaid, and claiming fraud. Following a two-day trial, the bankruptcy court found that the debt had been repaid in full, and that no fraud had been shown. When the bankruptcy action was over, the Dade County suit proceeded. Hochstadt sought to relitigate the same issues that he had unsuccessfully litigated in the bankruptcy action, but sought relief against VanThorre and Orange Broadcast as well as Siegel. Defendants moved for summary judgment on the ground that relitigation of the issues was barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel. The trial court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment. Hochstadt appeals.
We agree with the trial court that Hochstadt was collaterally estopped from relitigating in state court the same issues that were first litigated in the federal bankruptcy action. Because the first judgment was rendered by a federal court, federal principles of collateral estoppel apply. Cf. Aerojet-General Corp. v. Askew, 511 F.2d 710 (5th Cir.1975) (, )cert. denied, 423 U.S. 908, 96 S.Ct. 210, 46 L.Ed.2d 137 (1975); see generally, 18 Wright, Miller, & Cooper, Federal Practice & Procedure Sec. 4472 (1981 & Supp.1991) ("The res judicata effects of a judgment are determined by the law of the court that rendered the judgment.") (citing Degnan, Federalized Res Judicata, 85 Yale L.J. 741 (1976).
Federal principles of collateral estoppel 1 preclude relitigation of issues actually litigated in a prior proceeding, where the issues at stake are identical, and where determination of those issues was a critical and necessary part of the first litigation. Stovall v. Price Waterhouse Co., 652 F.2d 537, 540 (5th Cir.1981). Identity of parties is not required when collateral estoppel is used defensively. 2 Hart v. Yamaha-Parts Distribs., Inc., 787 F.2d 1468, 1473 (11th Cir.1986) () 3 In determining whether collateral estoppel applies, judgments rendered by a bankruptcy court are entitled to same the weight as judgments from other federal trial courts. See Miami Center Ltd. Partnership v. Bank of New York, 838 F.2d 1547 (11th Cir.) (, )cert. denied, 488 U.S. 823, 109 S.Ct. 69, 102 L.Ed.2d 46 (1988); cf. Freehling v. MGIC Fin. Corp., 437 So.2d 191 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983) ( ).
The bankruptcy court determined by a preponderance of the evidence that Hochstadt's loan had been repaid in full. The standard of proof required to prove that claim in bankruptcy court is the same standard required in state court. See Grogan v. Garner, --- U.S. ----, 111 S.Ct. 654, 657, 112 L.Ed.2d 755, 762-63 (1991) ( )(citations omitted), and Klein v. Witte, 142 So.2d 789, 790 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. B.J.M.
...that collateral estoppel precludes relitigation of issues actually litigated in a prior proceeding. See Hochstadt v. Orange Broadcast, 588 So.2d 51 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). The district court held that collateral estoppel does not bar an action for damages, and reasoned The prior judicial review......
-
United Services Auto. Ass'n v. Selz
...Zeidwig v. Ward, 548 So.2d 209 (Fla.1989); Dixie Auto Transp. Co. v. Louttit, 588 So.2d 68 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); Hochstadt v. Orange Broadcast, 588 So.2d 51 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); Verhagen v. Arroyo, 552 So.2d 1162 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989), rev. denied, 574 So.2d 144 (Fla.1990); Keramati v. Schackow, ......
-
Amador v. Florida Bd. of Regents
..."Because the first judgment was rendered by a federal court, federal principles of collateral estoppel apply." Hochstadt v. Orange Broadcast, 588 So.2d 51, 52 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991) (citations omitted)1; see also Agripost, Inc. v. Miami-Dade County, 195 F.3d 1225, 1230 n. 11 (11th Cir.1999); Na......
-
Park v. City of West Melbourne, 5D05-2226.
...that have been fully litigated and which resulted in a final decision of a court of competent jurisdiction); Hochstadt v. Orange Broadcast, 588 So.2d 51, 53 n. 2 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991) (stating that "defensive collateral estoppel `occurs when a defendant seeks to prevent a plaintiff form assert......
-
Legal theories & defenses
...of the first litigation … Identity of parties is not required when collateral estoppel is used defensively. Hochstadt v. Orange Broad. , 588 So.2d 51, 52 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991), abrogated on other grounds , 830 So.2d 120 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002). 3. Mutuality: The well-established rule in Florida has......