Lott v. Toomey

• Decision Date: 20 September 1985
• Docket Number: No. 84-418,84-418
• Parties: Jake E. LOTT, Sr. v. Leona TOOMEY, Special Administratrix and Administratrix of the Estate of Barbara Jean Murphy, Deceased, and The Foxboro Company, a corporation.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Page 316

477 So.2d 316

Jake E. LOTT, Sr. v. Leona TOOMEY, Special Administratrix and Administratrix of the Estate of Barbara Jean Murphy, Deceased, and The Foxboro Company, a corporation.

No. 84-418.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Sept. 20, 1985.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 4, 1985.

Joseph J. Boswell, Mobile, for appellant.

Herman D. Padgett of Stanard & Mills, Mobile, for appellees.

MADDOX, Justice.

The issue in this case is the validity of a common law marriage in light of a previously undissolved ceremonial marriage. This same set of facts has been previously appealed twice to the Court of Civil Appeals. See, Courtaulds North America, Inc. v. Lott, 403 So.2d 240 (Ala.Civ.App.), cert. denied, 403 So.2d 244 (Ala.1981); and Courtaulds North America, Inc. v. Lott, 435 So.2d 738 (Ala.Civ.App.), aff'd, 435 So.2d 742 (Ala.1983). Only one party to these prior appeals is a party to the present action. In both prior appeals a judgment supporting the later common law marriage was reversed by the Court of Civil Appeals. After the second reversal, the parties agreed for the court to enter a consent decree, again upholding the validity of the common law marriage. In the present case, the trial judge held that this consent decree is not binding on the present parties. We affirm.

The judge below made the following findings of fact:

(1) Barbara Jean Murphy (Barbara) married Clarence Murphy (Clarence) in a ceremonial marriage in 1954 in Mobile County, Alabama. Later that same year, Barbara and Clarence moved to Chicago, Cook County, Illinois, and resided there together continuously until 1959.

(2) In 1959, Barbara and Clarence voluntarily separated and Barbara left Chicago and moved to California and resided there continuously until 1962. The only known county in which Barbara resided in California was Los Angeles County.

(3) In 1962, Barbara left California and moved to Alabama and resided continuously in Alabama until her death. The only counties in which Barbara resided in Alabama upon her return in 1962 were Mobile and Elmore.

(4) From the date of their marriage until the date of Barbara's death, the only counties in which Clarence resided were Cook County, Illinois, and Mobile County, Alabama.

(5) From the date of their marriage until the date of Barbara's death, Clarence neither initiated divorce proceedings nor was aware of any proceedings initiated against him by Barbara. Clarence was never served with divorce papers after his marriage to Barbara.

(6) In the records of the courts of competent jurisdiction in Mobile County, Alabama, Elmore County, Alabama, Cook County, Illinois, and Los Angeles County, California, no record can be found of a divorce between Barbara and Clarence.

(7) Barbara died in Mobile County, Alabama, on February 2, 1979.

(8) On December 28, 1983, final judgment was entered in a workmen's compensation case filed by Jake Lott (Lott), in which Lott was alleged to have been a dependent of Barbara at the time of her death within the meaning of the Alabama workmen's compensation laws, against Courtaulds North America, Inc., (Courtaulds), Barbara's employer at the time of her death. Prior to the date of the final judgment, Clarence, earlier made a party defendant, was voluntarily dismissed.

(9) The judgment in the workmen's compensation case was entered upon findings of fact and conclusions of law agreed to by Lott and Courtaulds. No true judicial determination was made by the court in the workmen's compensation case; rather, the final judgment and order in that case were prepared by Lott prior to the date of entry, agreed to by Courtaulds prior to such date, and entered by the court in form as presented.

(10) One conclusion of law by the court in the workmen's compensation case was that Lott was the common law husband of Barbara at the time of Barbara's death.

(11) The workmen's compensation settlement was agreed to by Lott and Courtaulds only after earlier judgments in that case in favor of Lott had been twice reversed on appeal. The subject of each appeal was evidence offered by Courtaulds to show that the marriage of Barbara and Clarence was never dissolved prior to Barbara's death.

(12) Leona Toomey (Leona) was not a party to the workmen's compensation case. Her interests were not represented therein by any party. On October 28, 1983, Leona's application to intervene in the workmen's compensation case was denied.

The present action was filed by Lott against Leona and the Foxboro Company. Leona, as personal representative of Barbara's estate, had filed a wrongful death action against Foxboro pursuant to Code 1975, § 25-5-11. The two actions were consolidated for trial. Thereafter, Lott filed this declaratory judgment action, and prayed that the pending wrongful death action be stayed until a decision on the merits of this case could be reached. The trial court ruled in favor of Leona.

Leona contends that due to the undissolved marriage between Barbara and Clarence, Barbara was barred from contracting a valid common law marriage with Lott. This same issue was the subject of the two previous cases involving Lott. Lott claims, in part, that due to the prior disposition of this issue, Leona is barred by the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel from relitigating it. Lott further claims that Leona has no standing to challenge the common law marriage, and that even if she does, she failed to sustain the burden of proof. We disagree with Lott, and, therefore, affirm.

The elements of both res judicata and collateral estoppel were set out by this Court in Wheeler v. First Ala. Bank of Birmingham, 364 So.2d 1190, 1199 (Ala.1978). Res judicata requires (1) a prior judgment rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction; (2) a prior judgment rendered on the merits; (3) substantially the same parties in both suits; and (4) the same cause of action in both suits. Where these elements are present, the former suit bars any later suit on the same cause of action, including issues that were or could have been litigated in the prior case.

Collateral estoppel requires (1) an issue identical to one litigated in the prior suit; (2) that the issue has been actually litigated in the prior suit; and (3) that the resolution of that issue have been necessary to the prior judgment. In addition, the parties must have been the same in both suits. Where these elements are present, the parties are barred from relitigating issues actually litigated in a prior suit.

The judge below determined that Leona, as the personal representative, was the proper party to bring suit against Foxboro. Thus, she was not bound, either by res judicata or collateral estoppel, from litigating the issues determined by consent decree in the previous cases. A consent decree, the judge determined, is binding upon only the parties who agreed to it, and not to a stranger to the agreement. In other words, the judge held that Leona was not a party to the former suit, and that the consent decree was not a final determination on the merits. We agree.

In order for one suit to bar subsequent litigation, the parties must have been substantially the same in both cases. This means that the parties in both cases must be either the same, or in privity of estate, blood, or law with the original parties. Clark v. Whitfield, 213 Ala. 441, 444, 105 So. 200, 203 (1925). Leona had no opportunity to present her arguments in the prior case, nor were her interests adequately represented by those who were parties. Her attempt to intervene in the previous lawsuit was denied; thus she was not personally represented in the case. Nor did Clarence and Courtaulds, the two litigants in the first action against Lott, represent her adequately so as to bar the present suit. Clarence was dismissed prior to trial and Courtaulds settled with Lott.

Further, the act of the settlement indicates that the issue of the validity of the common law marriage has not been fully and finally litigated. In their settlement, Courtaulds stipulated that Barbara and Lott were validly married. As Lott notes, a consent decree is binding only on the parties to it. Cowley v. Farrow, 193 Ala. 381, 384, 69 So. 114, 115 (1915). However, not having been a party to the prior litigation, Leona is not so bound. Thus, as to her, the...