Rajsfus v. Fabri, 88-470
| Decision Date | 27 December 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 88-470,88-470 |
| Parties | 14 Fla. L. Weekly 107, 9 UCC Rep.Serv.2d 156 Jean Pierre RAJSFUS, Appellant, v. Anne Texier FABRI, individually, and Sofram, U.S.A., a Florida corporation, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Friedman & Atherton and Jeffrey D. Fisher, Miami, for appellant.
Brian M. Mark, South Miami, for appellees.
Before HUBBART, FERGUSON and JORGENSON, JJ.
Rajsfus appeals from an order dismissing his complaint as barred by res judicata. For the reasons which follow, we reverse.
On December 15, 1986, Jean Pierre Rajsfus lent $24,200 to Sofram, U.S.A., and Ann Texier Fabri. Fabri signed a guaranty which listed by check number the four checks Sofram would execute to satisfy its indebtedness.
Sofram's first check to Rajsfus for $5,000 was presented and honored, reducing its indebtedness to $19,200. Sofram's subsequent checks for $5,000 and for $9,200 were returned for insufficient funds. Rajsfus sent Fabri notices of dishonor and, on May 5, 1987, Rajsfus sued Fabri and Sofram on the two dishonored instruments. The court entered a default on June 1, 1987, and entered a final judgment in favor of Rajsfus on October 16, 1987, for $14,200, the sum of the two dishonored checks, plus costs and attorney's fees. Sofram satisfied that judgment.
On June 24, 1987, another check executed by Sofram to Rajsfus for $5,000 was returned because Fabri had stopped payment. On November 19, 1987, Rajsfus sued on that instrument and unsuccessfully moved to consolidate that suit with the earlier action on the dishonored instruments. The trial court dismissed the November, 1987, action on the ground of res judicata.
The trial court erred in dismissing the second action. Res judicata requires four identities between the former and subsequent litigation. "[T]here are four conditions peculiar to res judicata: identity of the thing, the cause of action, the parties, and the quality of the person for or against whom the claim is made." Avant v. Hammond Jones, Inc., 79 So.2d 423 (Fla.1955).
Here, the causes of action were different in each lawsuit. Although both suits mentioned the underlying indebtedness of $24,200 and Fabri's guaranty, the actual causes of action were based on separate instruments--separate causes of action which accrued at different times.
Under the Uniform Commercial Code, an action on a dishonored instrument may be maintained on either the instrument or the underlying...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ludovici v. McKiness
...is made, of the cause of action, and of the thing sued for in each action--Albrecht v. State, 444 So.2d 8 (Fla.1984); Rajsfus v. Fabri, 535 So.2d 690 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988), but also on an adjudication on the merits. Malunney v. Pearlstein, 539 So.2d 493 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989); Florida Patient's Co......
-
Personnel One, Inc. v. John Sommerer & Co., P.A., A-G
...and identity of quality for or against whom the claim is made. Avant v. Hammond Jones, Inc., 79 So.2d 423 (Fla.1955); Rajsfus v. Fabri, 535 So.2d 690 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). All identities are present in this case. Both suits were brought to recover the same $550 as liquidated damages pursuant ......
-
Lobato-Bleidt v. Lobato
...it involve an impermissible splitting of a cause of action. See The Florida Bar v. Gentry, 447 So.2d 1342 (Fla.1984); Rajsfus v. Fabri, 535 So.2d 690 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). The Bleidts next contend that the challenged transactions cannot be deemed fraudulent transfers under section 56.29 (proc......