Setlock v. Setlock

• Court: Georgia Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: Melton
• Citation: Setlock v. Setlock, 688 S.E.2d 346, 286 Ga. 384 (Ga. 2010)
• Decision Date: 25 January 2010
• Docket Number: No. S09A1588.,S09A1588.
• Parties: SETLOCK v. SETLOCK et al.

688 S.E.2d 346

286 Ga. 384

SETLOCK v. SETLOCK et al.

No. S09A1588.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

January 25, 2010.

Ann M. Vaughan, Blairsville, for appellant.

Bryman & Clerke, David N. Bryman, Marietta, for appellee.

MELTON, Justice.

Steven Setlock and his father, Eugene Setlock, entered an alleged oral agreement to purchase a lake house property located in Blairsville, Georgia ("Lake House"). The agreement provided for Eugene to pay $150,000 of the $203,250 purchase price. Steven was to finance the remainder and pay the monthly mortgage payments, taxes, and insurance on the property. Despite the alleged oral agreement for the parties to purchase the property together, title to the property was acquired solely in Steven and his wife's names, and Steven contends that Eugene and his wife were only allowed to live at the Lake House as Steven and his wife's tenants. See, e.g., Browning v. Fed. Home Loan Mtg. Corp., 210 Ga.App. 115(3), 435 S.E.2d 450 (1993).

While Eugene and his wife were living on the property, a dispute arose between the parties, which eventually led to Steven filing a dispossessory action against Eugene and his wife in the Union County Magistrate Court in July 2007. Eugene filed counterclaims seeking to quiet title, a declaratory judgment, and an injunction, and pursuing money damages that exceeded the $15,000 jurisdictional limit¹ of the magistrate court (the "Lake House claims").² Based on his assertion of equitable claims and a request for money damages in excess of the magistrate court's jurisdictional limit, Eugene petitioned to have the case removed to the Superior Court of Union County. However, the magistrate court denied transfer and entered a judgment, granting possession of the Lake House to Steven and granting a writ of possession in favor of Steven, requiring Eugene and his wife to vacate the premises. Eugene then attempted to appeal the magistrate court judgment to the Superior Court of Union County, but the superior court dismissed the appeal as untimely.

On May 22, 2008, Eugene then filed in the Superior Court of Union County a petition to quiet title, which contained the same Lake House claims that he had previously filed as counterclaims in the magistrate court dispossessory action. Steven moved to dismiss the complaint, and the superior court granted the motion with regard to the Lake House claims, determining that the doctrine of res judicata barred Eugene from reviving in superior court the same claims that he had previously asserted as counterclaims in magistrate court. We granted Eugene's application for discretionary appeal to determine whether the superior court erred in determining that Eugene's Lake House claims were barred by res judicata. For the reasons that follow, we reverse.

"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." (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Karan, Inc. v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 280 Ga. 545, 546, 629 S.E.2d 260 (2006). Before res judicata applies, three prerequisites must be satisfied — "(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. Here, the first two elements are not at issue as the parties involved are the same and the claims Eugene filed in superior court were identical to the counterclaims he had previously alleged in magistrate court. The only question before this Court is whether the magistrate court was a court of competent jurisdiction regarding Eugene's Lake House claims such that its judgment is binding, which would bar revival of Eugene's Lake House claims in superior court.

Each magistrate court and each magistrate thereof shall have jurisdiction and power over ... [t]he trial of civil claims ... in which exclusive jurisdiction is not vested in the superior court and the amount demanded or the value of the property claimed does not exceed $15,000.00 ... [and][t]he ... issuance of writs and judgments in dispossessory proceedings.

OCGA § 15-10-2(5) and (6). However, "[f]or the purpose of enabling all persons owning real estate within this state to have the title thereto settled and registered[,] ... the superior court of the county in which the land is located shall have exclusive original jurisdiction of all petitions and proceedings had thereupon." (Emphasis supplied.) OCGA § 44-2-60.

Thus, here, although the magistrate court had jurisdiction over Steven's dispossessory action, it did not have jurisdiction to render a binding judgment on Eugene's Lake House counterclaims which included claims for declaratory judgment, to quiet title, and an injunction, and which sought money damages that exceeded the $15,000...