Title: ROBINSON v. TEXHOMA LIMESTONE, INC.

State: oklahoma

Issuer: Oklahoma Supreme Court

Document:

ROBINSON v. TEXHOMA LIMESTONE, INC.  ROBINSON v. TEXHOMA LIMESTONE, INC. 2004 OK 50 100 P.3d 673 Case Number: 99513 Decided: 06/22/2004 THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA MERWIN ROBINSON, Appellant, v. TEXHOMA LIMESTONE, INC., and, JIMMY RAY MERRITT, Appellees. ON CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS, DIVISION III ¶0 Merwin Robinson filed an action in the district court in Bryan County, Oklahoma, to recover damages for personal injury suffered in a motor vehicle accident. The defendants moved to dismiss the claim on the grounds that it constitutes a compulsory counterclaim under OPINION OF THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS VACATED; SUMMARY DISPOSITION OF THE DISTRICT COURT REVERSED; CAUSE REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS. Albert R. Matthews, Muskogee, Oklahoma, for appellant. Carrie Palmer Hoisington and Linda G. Kaufmann, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for appellees. BOUDREAU, J. ¶1 This is an appeal from a summary disposition order of the district court. The district court, finding that plaintiff's claim against defendants should have been filed as a compulsory counterclaim in a prior action, dismissed the claim with prejudice to its refiling. The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed. The dispositive question on certiorari is whether the district court erred in dismissing plaintiff's claim as barred by I. Background ¶2 This case arises out of a collision between a pick-up truck and a tractor/trailer vehicle at the intersection of State Highway 78 and 91 in Achille, Oklahoma. Plaintiff/appellant, Merwin Robinson, was driving the pick-up truck in which Eddie Robinson and Jerry Meade were passengers. Defendant/appellee, Jimmy Merritt (Merritt), was driving the tractor/trailer in the course of his employment with the owner of the tractor/trailer, Texhoma Limestone, Inc. (Texhoma), defendant/appellee. Both of Merwin Robinson's passengers were fatally injured and Robinson was seriously injured in the accident. ¶3 The accident gave rise to three separate lawsuits. In the first suit, the estate of passenger Jerry Meade sought to recover damages for his wrongful death from Texhoma and Merritt. The petition alleged that Merritt caused the accident by driving at a high rate of speed in violation of applicable law. Texhoma and Merritt filed a third party petition against Merwin Robinson, driver of the pick-up truck, alleging he failed to stop and yield the right of way and seeking damages under the doctrine of contribution and/or indemnity. Texhoma and Merritt subsequently dismissed the third party petition without prejudice before Merwin Robinson filed an answer in the Meade case. ¶4 In a second suit, the estate of passenger Eddie Robinson filed a wrongful death action against Texhoma and Merritt. That petition also alleged that Merritt caused the accident by driving at a high rate of speed in violation of applicable law. As in the Meade case, Texhoma and Merritt filed a third party petition against Merwin Robinson, the driver of the pick-up truck, alleging he failed to stop and yield the right of way and seeking damages under the doctrine of contribution and/or indemnity. Merwin Robinson answered the third party petition, denying liability and reserving the right to raise affirmative defenses when discovered. Texhoma and Merritt subsequently filed a dismissal without prejudice of the third party petition against Robinson. ¶5 In the third and instant suit, Merwin Robinson, the driver of the pick-up truck, filed a personal injury action against Texhoma and Merritt, alleging that Merritt caused the accident by driving at a high rate of speed in violation of applicable law. Texhoma and Merritt filed a motion to dismiss, contending that Merwin Robinson's claim was barred by ¶6 Merwin Robinson timely appealed. The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the dismissal of Merwin Robinson's claim. The Court of Civil Appeals found that Merwin Robinson's claim constituted a compulsory counterclaim in the prior action for the wrongful death of passenger Eddie Robinson. II. Standard of Review ¶7 Texhoma and Merritt attached several evidentiary exhibits to their motion to dismiss. Summary disposition procedure applies to a motion to dismiss that tenders for consideration material outside the pleadings. Rules for the District Courts, Rule13, 12 O.S.2001, ch. 2, app. 1. An order granting summary disposition disposes solely of questions of law. Manley v. Brown, III. Failure to interpose a compulsory counterclaimin a prior action operates to preclude the claim in a subsequent action only if final judgment on the merits was rendered in the prior action. ¶8 Compulsory counterclaims are creatures of ¶9 The courts have recognized two distinct theories underlying the compulsory counterclaim bar 1) merger and res judicata and 2) waiver and estoppel. ¶10 Those courts resting the compulsory counterclaim bar on waiver and estoppel view the bar as arising from the culpable conduct of a litigant in failing to assert the compulsory counterclaim. ¶11 Oklahoma has clearly taken the position that the bar of compulsory counterclaim is closely related to the doctrine of claim preclusion. Explaining the nature of a compulsory counterclaim, McDaneld v. Lynn Hickey Dodge, Inc., . . . A compulsory counterclaim requirement is similar in effect to a claim-preclusion bar. [Footnote omitted.] The principle of claim preclusion (earlier known as res judicata) teaches that a judgment in an action bars the parties (or their privies) from relitigating not only the adjudicated claim, but also any theories or issues that were actually decided together with those which could have been decided in that action. [Footnote omitted.] ¶12 Since Oklahoma has rested its compulsory counterclaim bar on the doctrine of claim preclusion, the bar must rest upon the existence of a judgment on the merits rendered in the prior action. IV. This Court cannot make a legal determination as to the preclusive effect of the prior action (the passenger Eddie Robinson action) on Merwin Robinson's claim in this case because the summary disposition record does not contain the omplete judgment roll of the prior action. ¶13 Having determined that the compulsory counterclaim statute, ¶14 The summary disposition record does not contain the judgment roll of the prior action for the wrongful death of passenger Eddie Robinson. Because Texhoma and Merritt are relying on that prior action as a preclusive bar to Merwin Robinson's claim in this case, it was their burden to produce below the entire judgment roll from that action. V. Summary ¶15 In summary, failure to interpose a compulsory counterclaim in a prior action operates to preclude the claim in a subsequent action only if final judgment on the merits was rendered in the prior action. However, this Court cannot make a legal determination as to the preclusive effect of the passenger Eddie Robinson wrongful death action on Merwin Robinson's present claim because the summary disposition record does not contain the complete judgment roll of the prior action. Accordingly, this cause must be remanded to the district court for further proceedings. OPINION OF THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS VACATED; SUMMARY DISPOSITION OF THE DISTRICT COURT REVERSED; CAUSE REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS. WATT, C.J., OPALA, V.C.J., and HODGES, HARGRAVE, KAUGER, BOUDREAU, WINCHESTER, and EDMONDSON, JJ., concur. LAVENDER, J., dissents. FOOT