Property Exchange & Sales, Inc. v. King
| Decision Date | 21 January 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. 60534,60534 |
| Citation | 822 S.W.2d 572 |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
| Parties | PROPERTY EXCHANGE & SALES, INC., Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Joseph P. KING, William T. Bozarth, Robert Garrett, Michael J. Weinberger, Thomas J. Gochberg, d/b/a Town & Four Villages, Town & Four Apartments, Town & Four Village Apartments, and Town & Four Townhouses and Apartments, Defendants/Respondents. |
Steven Walters, St. Louis, for plaintiff/appellant.
Richard C. Bresnahan, Snyder, Wier, Shaller, Clayton, for defendants/respondents.
This appeal involves the issue of whether a prior judgment dismissing the same cause of action with prejudice for failure to be represented by a licensed attorney precludes a subsequent action because of the doctrines of res judicata or collateral estoppel. We hold that, where there was no adjudication on the merits in the prior action, the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel do not bar a subsequent action.
The litigation leading to this appeal involves Property Exchange & Sales, Inc.'s claim for a return of a security deposit from the defendants. After amendment, the original action was brought by Richard Jacobs as assignee of Property Exchange & Sales, Inc. Jacobs, who filed the petition, was not a licensed attorney. The trial court dismissed the action with prejudice on the grounds that a corporation cannot assign to an assignee a cause of action for breach of contract, fraud, unlawful practices or failure to refund a security deposit. We affirmed the judgment of trial court on a different ground, holding that an assignee of a corporation could not bring suit on behalf of a corporation without representation by a licensed attorney. 1 Property Exchange & Sales, Inc. v. Bozarth, 778 S.W.2d 1 (Mo.App.1989). In affirming the judgment, we did not reconsider whether the dismissal for failure to have an attorney should continue to be with prejudice. Accordingly the judgment which was affirmed, was a dismissal with prejudice.
Jacobs subsequently reassigned the rights to the cause of action to Property Exchange & Sales, Inc., who filed the present action. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss this action on the grounds that the causes of action and issues were identical to those brought in the first lawsuit and could not be relitigated because of the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel. The trial court sustained the defendants' motion to dismiss. Property Exchange & Sales, Inc. appeals from this order. We reverse and remand.
Property Exchange & Sales, Inc. contends that the trial court erred in dismissing its cause of action because it erroneously applied the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel. In reviewing the action sustaining the motion to dismiss, we must affirm the dismissal of the suit if that dismissal can be sustained on any ground which is supported by the motion to dismiss submitted by the defendants regardless of whether the trial court relied on that ground. Delmain v. Meramec Valley R-III School Dist., 671 S.W.2d 415, 416 (Mo.App.1984).
Both the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel apply to judgments rendered upon the merits. The doctrine of res judicata applies to an "existing final judgment rendered upon the merits." Barkley v. Carter County State Bank, 791 S.W.2d 906, 910 (Mo.App.1990). Collateral estoppel operates to prevent a party or its privies from relitigating facts or questions in issue between the same parties which have been adjudicated on the merits. Peoples-Home Life Ins. Co. v. Haake, 604 S.W.2d 1, 8 (Mo.App.1980).
Defendants argue that a "dismissal with prejudice operates as an adjudication upon the merits," citing § 510.150 RSMo ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Muzingo v. Vaught
...which is supported by the motion to dismiss, regardless of whether the trial court relied on that ground. Property Exchange & Sales, Inc. v. King, 822 S.W.2d 572, 573 (Mo.App.1992). "If it clearly appears from the petition that the cause of action is barred by limitations, a motion to dismi......
-
Berkowski v. St. Louis County Bd. of Election Com'rs
...We must affirm if the dismissal can be sustained on any ground supported by the motion to dismiss. Property Exchange & Sales, Inc. v. King, 822 S.W.2d 572, 573 (Mo.App.1992). For her first point plaintiff asserts that the trial court erred in sustaining the Election Board's motion to dismis......
-
Gray-Ross v. St. Louis Pub. Sch.
...on any ground stated in the motion to dismiss, whether or not the trial court relied on that ground. Prop. Exch. & Sales, Inc. v. King , 822 S.W.2d 572, 573 (Mo. App. E.D. 1992) (citing Delmain v. Meramec Valley R–III School Dist. , 671 S.W.2d 415, 416 (Mo. App. E.D. 1984) ).DiscussionPoint......
-
H.R.B. v. J.L.G., 68010
...presented to and considered by the trial court, regardless of whether the court relied on that ground. Property Exchange & Sales, Inc. v. King, 822 S.W.2d 572, 573 (Mo.App.E.D.1992). The archbishop and the church argue Count IV, plaintiff's claim of respondeat superior, failed to state a ca......