Shelby County Planning Com'n v. Seale
Decision Date | 25 May 1990 |
Citation | 564 So.2d 900 |
Parties | SHELBY COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION v. Sharon SEALE. 88-1349. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Oliver P. Head of Wallace, Ellis, Head & Fowler, Columbia, for appellant.
Eason Mitchell and Robert C. Thomas, Jr., Alabaster, for appellee.
This is an appeal by the Shelby County Planning Commission ("SCPC") from a judgment confirming a sale of real estate. We reverse and remand.
In order to thoroughly discuss the present case, a discussion of a prior related case is necessary.
In 1986, Shelby County sued Ricky Seale, the husband of Sharon Seale, alleging that he had subdivided land and sold lots in violation of SCPC regulations. The suit also requested that Mr. Seale be enjoined from selling any of the remaining lots.
The trial court entered a consent judgment enjoining Mr. Seale from selling the remaining lots. Although she had not been a party to the suit, Mrs. Seale subsequently joined Mr. Seale in a petition to dissolve the injunction. The purpose of the petition was to allow Mr. and Mrs. Seale to sell lots 14 and 15, which they claimed composed their homestead. On April 30, 1987, the trial court issued the following order:
On May 18, 1987, the court entered an amended order in which it required the SCPC to post security as required by Rule 65, A.R.Civ.P. The order also stated that the injunction would be binding on Mr. Seale until he received the approval of the SCPC to sell the lots.
On May 26, 1987, Mrs. Seale filed suit, naming her husband and the SCPC as defendants. In the complaint, Mrs. Seale alleged that she and her husband were joint owners and tenants in common as to the real estate as to which in the prior suit the court had enjoined a sale. She also alleged that the land was not the homestead of either her or her husband.
Mrs. Seale's suit went to trial, and the court, hearing ore tenus evidence, ordered that the land be sold at a public auction. The property was subsequently sold at a public sale to an individual for $16,000. That sale was confirmed. The SCPC appealed.
The issue is whether the doctrine of res judicata precludes Mrs. Seale from selling her interest in the property.
The principle of res judicata provides that once there is a final judgment, "those who have contested an issue shall be bound by the ruling of the court; and issues once tried shall be considered forever settled between those same parties and their privies." Hughes v. Martin, 533 So.2d 188, 190 (Ala.1988). When discussing and defining res judicata, this Court has focused on the concepts of claim preclusion and issue preclusion. Owen v. Miller, 414 So.2d 889, 890 (Ala.1981). Both claim preclusion and issue preclusion are subsets of the doctrine of res judicata. Commentary, "Issue Preclusion in Alabama," 32 Ala.L.Rev. 500, 503 (1981). However, to resolve the issue before us, we need only discuss issue preclusion.
Issue preclusion is the rule that once a particular issue has been litigated and there is a final judgment on the merits, any further litigation of the same issue is...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Barton v. American Red Cross
...either issue preclusion or claim preclusion to apply, the prior judgment must have been a final judgment. Shelby County Planning Comm'n v. Seale, 564 So.2d 900, 901-02 (Ala.1990); Chandler v. Commercial Union Ins. Co., 467 So.2d 244, 251 (Ala.1985). As the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals ......
-
Tri-National, Inc. v. Yelder
...is required. See, e.g., Equity Res. Mgmt., Inc. v. Vinson, 723 So.2d 634, 636 (Ala.1998) (res judicata); Shelby Cnty. Planning Comm'n v. Seale, 564 So.2d 900, 901–02 (Ala.1990) (collateral estoppel). The Alabama court here entered two judgments. In the first, it granted a default judgment i......
-
Marshall County Concerned Citizens v. City of Guntersville
...ordinance. The doctrine of res judicata consists of two subsets: claim preclusion and issue preclusion. Shelby County Planning Comm'n v. Seale, 564 So.2d 900 (Ala.1990). In the present case, we are concerned with the latter subset, issue preclusion. The elements of issue preclusion are: 1) ......
-
Campbell v. Garcia
...was actually litigated and determined; and (4) the judgment was valid, final and on the merits of the claim. Shelby Cty Planning Com'n v. Seale, 564 So. 2d 900, 901 (Ala. 1990). These four criteria have not been met to invoke issue preclusion. First, while the issue in this case is similar ......