Mahan v. Watkins

Decision Date01 July 2002
Docket NumberNo. A02A1013.,A02A1013.
Citation256 Ga. App. 260,568 S.E.2d 130
PartiesMAHAN et al. v. WATKINS.
CourtGeorgia Court of Appeals

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Fincher & Hecht, Steven M. Fincher, Murray J. Weed, Morrow, for appellants.

William A. Wehunt, Stockbridge, for appellee.

MIKELL, Judge.

Kenneth and Christy Mahan sued neighboring landowner Ellen Hay Watkins in connection with a retaining wall that the Mahans claimed was unsafe and encroached onto their property. The complaint was filed in magistrate court and asked for removal of the trespass, as well as damages and expenses. The magistrate court awarded the Mahans $592.50, plus $77 court costs. Watkins satisfied the judgment. Watkins later commenced the present action against the Mahans, claiming interference with a contract for the sale of her property. In their answer, the Mahans asserted a number of counterclaims connected to the same retaining wall they complained of in the earlier action, including trespass, nuisance, and wrongful interference with possession of their land. Watkins moved for partial summary judgment on the ground that the Mahans' counterclaim was barred by res judicata. The trial court agreed and entered judgment in favor of Watkins on the counterclaim. The Mahans appeal, and we affirm.

The issue presented is whether the Mahans' counterclaim was barred by res judicata because of the previous action in magistrate court.

The doctrine of res judicata prevents relitigation of matters that were or could have been litigated in a previously-adjudicated action. In order for res judicata to bar a subsequent action, it must be established that an identity of parties and subject matter exists between the two actions, and that a court of competent jurisdiction entered an adjudication in the earlier action.1

There is little question that identity of parties and subject matter exists between the counterclaim and the action in magistrate court. There was an additional party, James Edmondson, in the magistrate court action, but Watkins and the Mahans were parties to both actions. "[T]he phrase `same parties' does not mean that all of the parties on the respective sides of the litigation in the two cases shall have been identical[;] it does mean that those who invoke the defense and against whom it is invoked must be the same."2

Both the magistrate court action and the counterclaim concern the retaining wall. The Mahans contend that the counterclaim is fundamentally different because it is based only on equitable claims, while the earlier action included a claim for damages. We disagree because "[t]he adding of additional claims for relief which grow out of the same factual situation [does] not amount to the adding of a new or different cause of action."3

The most substantive question is whether the magistrate court's lack of equity jurisdiction in the earlier action prevents the application of res judicata to the later counterclaim. Equitable jurisdiction is vested exclusively in the superior courts under Art. VI, Sec. IV, Para. I of the Georgia Constitution. Under OCGA § 15-10-2(5), magistrate courts have jurisdiction over civil claims not exceeding $15,000, in which exclusive jurisdiction is not vested in the superior courts. Accordingly, the magistrate court had jurisdiction to hear the Mahans' trespass and other claims concerning the retaining wall and to award a damage judgment at law. But the magistrate court could not, and did not, provide an equitable remedy by ordering the removal of the retaining wall. The Mahans argue that, because the magistrate court did not have jurisdiction to hear their claims in equity, the third element of res judicata—jurisdiction of the court in the previous action—is not met. The fault with this argument is that the magistrate court did have jurisdiction to hear the Mahans' case and award a remedy. The scope of the remedy was limited to one at law, but the Mahans chose the forum and were bound by the limitations of the court that they c...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • White-Lett v. NewRez, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Georgia
    • April 20, 2024
    ...been identical; it does mean that those who invoke the defense and against whom it is invoked must be the same." Mahan v. Watkins, 256 Ga. App. 260, 261, 568 S.E.2d 130 (2002) (quoting Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Pinyan, 155 Ga. App. 343, 345, 270 S.E.2d 883 (1980)). Here, there is no di......
  • Crowe v. Elder
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • March 19, 2012
    ...Green v. Board of Directors of Park Cliff Unit Owners Ass'n, 279 Ga.App. 567, 570(2), 631 S.E.2d 769 (2006); Mahan v. Watkins, 256 Ga.App. 260, 261, 568 S.E.2d 130 (2002). Crowe could have originally brought her fraud claim in superior court and alleged both the fraud and breach of contract......
  • Mansell v. Starr Enterprises/Texaco, Inc.
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • July 1, 2002
  • HJ Russell & Co. v. Manuel
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • November 21, 2003
    ...comply with the consent judgment to which Russell voluntarily agreed. Because it was not a dispossessory case, Mahan v. Watkins, 256 Ga.App. 260, 261-262, 568 S.E.2d 130 (2002), noting that the magistrate court lacked jurisdiction to "provide an equitable remedy by ordering the removal of t......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
7 books & journal articles
  • Zoning and Land Use Law - Dennis J. Webb, Jr., Marcia Mccrory Ernst, Joseph L. Cooley, John Chadwick Torri, and Victor A. Ellis
    • United States
    • Mercer University School of Law Mercer Law Reviews No. 59-1, September 2007
    • Invalid date
    ...770. 407. Id., 631 S.E.2d at 770-71. 408. Id. at 570, 631 S.E.2d at 772. 409. Id. at 569, 631 S.E.2d at 772 (quoting Mahan v. Watkins, 256 Ga. App. 260, 261, 568 S.E.2d 130, 131 (2002)). 410. Id. at 569-70, 631 S.E.2d at 772 (citing Piedmont Cotton Mills, Inc. v. Woelper, 269 Ga. 109, 110, ......
  • 1 Small Claim Cases
    • United States
    • State Bar of Georgia Georgia Benchbook 2023 edition
    • Invalid date
    ...against defendant, defendant may reassert counterclaims beyond court's jurisdiction where transfer of case was denied [Compare 256 Ga.App. 260, 568 SE2d 130 (2002) and 279 Ga.App. 567, 631 SE2d 769 (2006) with Setlock v. Setlock 286 Ga. 384, 688 SE2d 346 (2010)]. Res judicata - when analyzi......
  • 1 Small Claim Cases
    • United States
    • State Bar of Georgia Georgia Benchbook 2022 edition
    • Invalid date
    ...against defendant, defendant may reassert counterclaims beyond court's jurisdiction where transfer of case was denied [Compare 256 Ga.App. 260, 568 SE2d 130 (2002) and 279 Ga.App. 567, 631 SE2d 769 (2006) with Setlock v. Setlock 286 Ga. 384, 688 SE2d 346 (2010)]. Res judicata - when analyzi......
  • 1 Small Claim Cases
    • United States
    • State Bar of Georgia Georgia Benchbook 2016 edition
    • Invalid date
    ...against defendant, defendant may reassert counterclaims beyond court's jurisdiction where transfer of case was denied [Compare 256 Ga.App. 260, 568 SE2d 130 (2002) and 279 Ga.App. 567, 631 SE2d 769 (2006) with Setlock v. Setlock 286 Ga. 384, 688 SE2d 346 (2010)]. Res judicata - when analyzi......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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