Salem Crossing Townhomes Homeowners Ass'n, Inc. v. Wagner

• Decision Date: 16 October 2018
• Docket Number: A18A1359
• Citation: 820 S.E.2d 453,347 Ga.App. 621
• Parties: SALEM CROSSING TOWNHOMES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. v. WAGNER et al.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

347 Ga.App. 621

820 S.E.2d 453

SALEM CROSSING TOWNHOMES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC.

v.WAGNER et al.

A18A1359

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

October 16, 2018

Jason Alexander LoMonaco, Victoria Cee Wen Sand, David Samuel Grossman, Atlanta, for Appellant.

Matthew W. Carlton, Atlanta, for Appellee.

Mercier, Judge.

Salem Crossing Townhomes Homeowners Association, Inc. ("the Association") appeals from the DeKalb County Superior Court’s grant of summary judgment to Angela M. Wagner and Gerald Peterson on the Association’s claim for homeowners association assessments. The superior court granted summary judgment based on the doctrine of res judicata. The trial court concluded, among other things, that a prior DeKalb County State Court judgment had determined that "Peterson’s house is not subject to payment of assessments because it is not a unit as defined by the [Association] Covenants." "Although we conclude the [superior] court erred in granting summary judgment based on res judicata, the [superior] court’s rulings support the grant of summary judgment based on the closely-related doctrine of collateral estoppel[,]" and we therefore affirm. Body of Christ Overcoming Church of God, Inc. v. Brinson , 287 Ga. 485, 486, 696 S.E.2d 667 (2010) (citation omitted).

Summary judgment is proper when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. OCGA § 9-11-56 (c). On appeal from the grant or denial of a motion for summary judgment, this Court conducts a de novo review of the law, viewing the evidence, and all reasonable conclusions and inferences drawn from it, in the light most favorable to the nonmovant. General Electric Capital Computer Services v. Gwinnett County Board of Tax Assessors , 240 Ga. App. 629, 630 (1), 523 S.E.2d 651 (1999). A grant of summary judgment will be affirmed if it is right for any reason. See Coffee Iron Works v. QORE, Inc. , 322 Ga. App. 137, 139 (1), 744 S.E.2d 114 (2013).

Viewed in the light most favorable to the Association, the record shows that the underlying superior court case was the second of two collection cases between the Association and Peterson concerning homeowners association assessments allegedly due on the single-family detached residence owned by Peterson and Wagner. It is undisputed that the first collection case began in magistrate court on July 31, 2015, when the Association filed an action against Peterson for failure to pay homeowners association assessments for the first, second and third quarters of 2015. The magistrate court found in favor of the Association. Peterson appealed to the state court and filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting his home is not subject to the requirement to pay front lawn landscaping assessments because he does not live in a "unit" as defined by the Association Covenants. Peterson introduced a copy of the Association Covenants, which stated that the Association shall maintain "all landscaped grounds areas within the boundaries of Units, except for landscaping, if any, contained within patio areas," and defined a "unit" as "a single-family attached [town home], the driveway and the lot upon which the house is constructed." The Association did not respond to Peterson’s motion for summary judgment. Based on Peterson’s motion, brief, affidavit, and statement of material facts not in dispute, the state court granted Peterson’s motion for summary judgment in January 2016. The Association apparently did not appeal that decision.

On July 18, 2016, the Association filed a second collection lawsuit in DeKalb County Superior Court against Wagner and Peterson to collect unpaid homeowners association assessments, collection costs, late charges, interest, and attorney fees for the first, second and third quarters of 2016. Wagner and Peterson filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting the Association’s claim was barred by the doctrine of res judicata. The Association responded, claiming res judicata did not apply because there was no identity of the cause of action or an adjudication on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction. The Association further argued that a 1992 amendment to the Association Covenants precluded Wagner and Peterson’s definition of "unit." The Association moved for summary judgment, claiming Wagner and Peterson owed the unpaid assessments pursuant to the Association Covenants. The trial court granted Wagner and Peterson’s motion for summary judgment, finding that res judicata precluded the Association’s claim to unpaid 2016 assessments.

1. The Association first contends that the trial court erred in applying the doctrine of res judicata in this case. We agree. It is well-established that the doctrine of res judicata "prevents the re-litigation of all claims which have already been adjudicated, or which could have been adjudicated, between identical parties or their privies in identical causes of action." Fulton County Tax Commissioner v. General Motors Corp. , 234 Ga. App. 459, 465 (1), 507 S.E.2d 772 (1998) (citation and punctuation omitted). "Three prerequisites must be satisfied before res judicata applies—(1) identity of the cause of action, (2) identity of the parties or their privies, and (3) previous adjudication on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction." Id."The fact that the subject matter of different lawsuits may be linked factually does not mean that they are the same ‘cause’ within the meaning of OCGA § 9-12-40.¹ For [res judicata] to act as a bar, ‘the cause of action in each suit must be identical.’ " Morrison v. Morrison , 284 Ga. 112, 115 (3), 663 S.E.2d 714 (2008) (citations omitted).

The Association does not disagree that the state and superior court cases involve an identity of the parties or their privies, but instead argues that the cases do not involve an identity of the cause of action because the final order in the state court case was entered in January 2016 "and could have only decided the amount of assessments owed by [Peterson and Wagner] to the Association prior to the date of the final order." The superior court action, on the other hand, sought assessments due after the state court’s final order was entered. Clearly, the subject matter is not identical between the state court action and the superior court action: the state court action sought unpaid homeowners association assessments for the first, second, and third quarter of 2015, while the superior court action sought unpaid homeowners association assessments for the first, second, and third quarter of 2016. See Oakwood Acceptance Corp., LLC v. Ahmad , 271 Ga. App. 356, 357 (1), 609 S.E.2d 700 (2005) (each breach of contract payable in separate installments constitutes a separate cause of action). Because the cause of action in superior court is not identical to the one in state court, the doctrine of res judicata does not apply to preclude the superior court action. Id.

2. Finding that the doctrine of res judicata does not apply to bar the present action, we must determine whether the related doctrine of collateral estoppel applies. "When a question of law is at issue, as here, we owe no deference to the trial court’s ruling and apply the ‘plain legal error’ standard of review." Nicholson v. Shafe , 294 Ga. App. 478, 480 (1), 669 S.E.2d 474 (2008) (citation and punctuation omitted). Collateral estoppel

precludes the re-adjudication of an issue that has previously been litigated and adjudicated on the merits in another action between the same parties or their privies. Like res judicata, collateral estoppel requires the identity of the parties or their privies in both actions. However, unlike res judicata, collateral estoppel does not require identity of the claim—so long as the issue was determined in the previous action and there is identity of the parties, that issue may not be re-litigated, even as part of a different claim.

Fulton County Tax Commissioner , supra at 465 (1), 507 S.E.2d 772 (citation omitted). The doctrine applies to "those issues that actually were litigated and decided in the previous action, or that necessarily had to be decided in order for the previous judgment to have been rendered." General Electric Capital Computer Services , supra at 631 (1), 523 S.E.2d 651.

(a) The Association asserts that the state court did not adjudicate the merits of the underlying superior court case. According to the Association, "[t]he State Court Judgment made it clear that judgment was granted in favor of [Peterson] due to the Association’s lack of response, not because it had found that [Peterson] and the Subject Property were not subject to the Declaration." The record belies this assertion. The state court’s order specifically notes:

The above-styled case, which is an appeal from Magistrate Court, comes before the Court on Defendant’s Motion and Brief for Summary Judgment, which was filed on November 16, 2015, along with the Affidavit of Gerald Peterson and Statement of Material Facts not in Dispute. Plaintiff has filed no response to the motion. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is hereby GRANTED.

Peterson’s state court motion and brief for summary judgment, as well as his affidavit, argue and introduce evidence that Peterson’s home is not subject to the Association Covenants because the residence does not meet the Association Covenants’ definition of a "unit." Thus, contrary to the Association’s argument, the state court order does not indicate that the court granted summary judgment based on the Association’s failure to respond.

Furthermore, the state court was not authorized to grant summary judgment based solely on the Association’s failure to respond to Peterson’s motion. "Because there is no such thing as a default summary judgment," the Association’s failure to respond to Peterson’s motion for summary judgment did not automatically entitle Peterson to judgment in his favor. Rapps v. Cooke , 234 Ga. App. 131, 131 (1), 505 S.E.2d 566 (1998) ; see Tselios v....