| Venue: |
UT SC
|
|
| Facts: |
Edlean and Woodey are getting divorced. The court awards the entirity
of the Slaugh House to Edlean as a way of evening out the
distribution of marital property. But Woodey claims he only had
a 1/2 interest in the property and the other half was owned
by a partnership with his sons as partners. |
|
| Posture: |
Partnership sues Edlean claiming a one-half interest in Slaugh
House. Trial court says this is both claim and issue precluded. |
|
| Issue: |
Did the court err by asserting that non-parties (the partnership)
were bound by its decree? |
|
| Holding: |
Yes. Reversed. |
|
| Rule: |
People who are not parties to an action are not bound by any preclusive effect. |
|
| Reasoning: |
Here is the test:
- Was the issue in the prior adjudication identical?
- Was there a final judgment on the merits?
- Was the party against whom the preclusion plea is asserted
a party or in privity with a party in the prior
adjudication?
Here, it's that third prong that fails. |
|
| Dicta: |
Crockett, dissenting: There was obvious privity, everyone was aware
of what was going on. Collateral estoppel is supposed to prevent
parties from having to litigate the same matter more than once,
but here we go with Edlean. |
|