Title: Bruns Foods of Morrilton, Inc. v. Hawkins

State: arkansas

Issuer: Arkansas Supreme Court

Document:

BRUNS FOODS of MORRILTON, INC. v. Marlin
HAWKINS, et al.

97-17                                              ___ S.W.2d ___

                    Supreme Court of Arkansas
                  Opinion delivered May 5, 1997


1.   Judgment -- doctrine of res judicata discussed -- privity of
     parties defined. -- Under the doctrine of res judicata, a
     valid and final judgment rendered on the merits by a court of
     competent jurisdiction bars another action by the plaintiff or
     his privies against the defendant or his privies on the same
     claim or cause of action; privity of parties within the
     meaning of res judicata means "a person so identified in
     interest with another that he represents the same legal
     right."  

2.   Property -- lessee holds only temporary possession of land --
     trial court correct in finding lessee had inferior interest to
     that of lessor. -- It is well settled that a lessee only holds
     temporary possession of the land while the ownership rights
     remain in the lessor; hence, the trial court was correct when
     it found that appellant, as lessee, had an inferior interest
     to that of its lessor. 

3.   Landlord & tenant -- when landowner is barred by statute of
     limitations tenant is also barred -- judgment that determines
     interest in real property against landlord bars relitigation
     of same matter by tenant. -- When a landowner is barred by the
     statute of limitations, then so too is the tenant; therefore,
     a tenant is in privity with his or her landlord such that a
     judgment that determines interests in real property against
     the landlord will bar relitigation of the matter by the
     tenant.

4.   Judgment -- decree entered by default is as conclusive as any
     other judgment -- an issue previously resolved by default
     judgment is barred from relitigation under doctrine of res
     judicata. -- With regard to the doctrine of res judicata, a
     decree entered by default is as conclusive as any other
     judgment or decree and it is not to be discredited or regarded
     lightly because of the manner in which it was acquired; a
     default judgment determines a plaintiff's right to recover and
     a defendant's liability just as any conventional judgment or
     decree; an issue previously resolved by default judgment is
     barred from relitigation under the doctrine of res judicata.

5.   Judgment -- res judicata barred appellant's action -- trial
     court's ruling affirmed.-- Because the supreme court found
     that res judicata bared the appellant's action against the
     appellees, the appellant's attempt to resurrect the stricken
     restrictive covenant was unsuccessful, and the trial court's
     ruling was affirmed.


     Appeal from Conway Chancery Court; Van Taylor, Chancellor;
affirmed.
     Chisenhall, Nestrud & Julian, P.A., by:  Jim L. Julian and
Jamie W. McFarlin, for appellant.
     Mark Cambiano and Phil Stratton, for appellees.
                
     Annabelle Clinton Imber, Justice.
     The appellant, Bruns Foods of Morrilton, Inc., appeals from a
dismissal entered in favor of the appellees, Marlin and Marvine
Hawkins.  The sole issue on appeal is whether a previous decision
in a lawsuit between the Hawkinses and a third party bars Bruns
Foods's action against the Hawkinses.  We find that it does, and
thus we affirm. 
     On August 9, 1982, Marlin and Marvine Hawkins conveyed a 1.69
acre lot located in Morrilton to the McDonald's Corporation.  The
deed contained a twenty-year restrictive covenant whereby the
Hawkinses agreed not to use the adjoining land for restaurant
purposes except for a "sit down restaurant connected with a hotel
or motel."  Subsequently, McDonald's conveyed a franchise and lease
to Bruns Foods for the operation of a McDonald's restaurant on the
lot.
     Ten years later, the Hawkinses filed a petition to abrogate
the restrictive covenant as void against public policy.  Bruns
Foods was not a named defendant nor did it move to intervene in the
Hawkinses's action.  The trial court entered a default judgment
against McDonald's for its failure to timely answer the complaint.
We initially dismissed the appeal in McDonald's Corp. v. Hawkins,
315 Ark. 487, 868 S.W.2d 78 (1994), and, in a second appeal, we
affirmed the trial court in two separate opinions. McDonald's Corp.
v. Hawkins, 319 Ark. 1,