Title: Turner v. Green

State: alabama

Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court

Document:

571 So. 2d 1104 (1990)
Albert TURNER and Edna Turner
v.
Robert S. GREEN and Rita F. Green.
89-1265.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
November 30, 1990.
*1105 John A. Courtney, Mobile, for appellants.
Mylan R. Engel and Karen H. Carr of Engel, Walsh and Zoghby, Mobile, for appellees.
SHORES, Justice.
The plaintiffs, Albert and Edna Turner, filed this action against the defendants, Robert S. and Rita F. Green, on November 16, 1988, claiming money due on account and money due for the sale of land. The defendants raised the affirmative defense of res judicata, alleging that these claims were, or could have been, litigated and determined in a previous action. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), A.R.Civ.P., and an answer containing the affirmative defense of res judicata.
The trial judge, Robert E. Lee Key, held a hearing to determine whether the plaintiffs' claims were barred by the doctrine of res judicata. He treated the defendants' motion as a Rule 56 motion for summary judgment (see Rule 12(b)(6)) and he entered a summary judgment on March 12, 1990, in favor of the defendants. The court later entered an amended order. That amended order read as follows:
The plaintiffs appeal.
Higgins v. Henderson, 551 So. 2d 1050, 1052-53 (Ala.1989). "If these essential elements are met, any issue that was, or could have been, adjudicated in the prior action is barred from further litigation. Trimble v. Bramco Products, Inc., 351 So. 2d 1357 (Ala.1977)." Wood v. Tricon Metals & Services, Inc., 548 So. 2d 138, 140 (Ala. 1989).
We have carefully reviewed the record in this case, including the pleadings, the stipulation of facts, and the briefs. Because all of the elements of res judicata, as set out above and as enumerated by the trial judge, are met in this case, the present claim is barred. Therefore, the judgment is due to be affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
HORNSBY, C.J., and JONES, HOUSTON and KENNEDY, JJ., concur.