PALM AFC HOLDINGS INC. v. Palm Beach County, 4D00-4493.

Decision Date23 January 2002
Docket NumberNo. 4D00-4493.,4D00-4493.
PartiesPALM AFC HOLDINGS, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. PALM BEACH COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, George Webb, in his capacity as Palm Beach County Engineer and not Individually, and Minto Communities, Inc., Appellees.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

Brian B. Joslyn and Ronald E. Crescenzo of Boose Casey Ciklin Lubitz Martens McBane & O'Connell, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Michael D. Joblove and Nina Greene Kersh of Genovese Lichtman Joblove & Battista, and John H. Schulte of Schulte & Bisbing, Miami, for appellee Minto Communities, Inc.

POLEN, C.J.

Appellant Palm AFC Holdings, Inc. timely appeals the Circuit Court's entry of Judgment on the Pleadings in favor of Minto Communities. We find the Circuit Court's entry of Judgment on the Pleadings based on res judicata was error, and accordingly, reverse.

Our review of the record reveals the Judgment on the Pleadings was based on res judicata, regarding this court's earlier opinion in Palm AFC Holdings, Inc. v. Minto Communities, Inc., 766 So.2d 436 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)1. Our prior opinion merely addressed the legal viability of appellant's damage claims against Palm Beach County. Appellant had attempted to appeal the Circuit Court's dismissal of Counts 1 through 4 of its complaint, its damage claims against Palm Beach County. We held appellant's appeal was untimely, and dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

We hold the Circuit Court erred in finding appellant's damage claims against appellee Minto were barred by res judicata. In order for res judicata to apply four identities must be present: (1) identity of the thing sued for; (2) identity of the cause of action; (3) identity of persons and parties; and (4) identity of the quality or capacity of the persons for or against whom the claim is made. State of Wisconsin on Behalf of North v. Martorella, 670 So.2d 1161, 1162 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). We find the instant case fails to meet the identity of parties test, where our prior decision merely addressed appellant's claims against the County.

We also reject appellee's request that we affirm the Judgment on the Pleadings on the grounds of collateral estoppel. Collateral estoppel may be employed where two causes of action fail to meet the identity test, but the other identities are present, i.e., identity of parties and issues. See Brown v. State, 397 So.2d...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Tyson v. Viacom, Inc.
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • 12 Enero 2005
    ...identity of the quality or capacity of the persons for or against whom the claim is made." See, e.g., Palm AFC Holdings, Inc. v. Palm Beach County, 807 So.2d 703, 704 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). "`Identity of the causes of action is established where the facts which are required to maintain both a......
  • Selim v. Pan American Airways Corp.
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • 8 Diciembre 2004
    ...test [of res judicata], but the other identities are present, i.e., identity of parties and issues." Palm AFC Holdings, Inc. v. Palm Beach County, 807 So.2d 703, 704 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). Selim contends that based on a line of federal cases, his claims are not barred by res judicata or colla......
  • State v. McBride
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • 15 Mayo 2003
    ...McGregor v. Provident Trust Co. of Philadelphia, 119 Fla. 718, 162 So. 323, 328 (1935); see also Palm AFC Holdings, Inc. v. Palm Beach County, 807 So.2d 703, 704 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002); State Dep't of Revenue v. Ferguson, 673 So.2d 920, 922 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). I suggest that there is no questi......
  • The Florida Bar v. St. Louis
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • 3 Mayo 2007
    ...McGregor v. Provident Trust Co. of Philadelphia, 119 Fla. 718, 162 So. 323, 328 (1935); see also Palm AFC Holdings, Inc. v. Palm Beach County, 807 So.2d 703, 704 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). Thus, the causes of action must be closely related for the doctrine of res judicata to apply. See Hay v. Sal......
  • 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