Opinion ID: 1143673
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Full and Fair Opportunity to Litigate The Consent Issue in Borg-Warner.

Text: The Murrays contend that although the BW action lasted one and a half years and produced an extensive record, the issue of consent in fact received little attention. The rule is that to be given collateral estoppel effect, an issue must have been actually and fully litigated in the first action. This rule, however, does not refer to the quality or quantity of argument or evidence addressed to an issue. It requires only two things: first, that the issue has been effectively raised in the prior action, either in the pleadings or through development of the evidence argued at trial or on motion; and second, that the losing party has had a fair opportunity procedurally, substantively, and evidentially to contest the issue. Overseas Motors, Inc. v. Import Motors Ltd., Inc., 375 F. Supp. 499, 516 (E.D.Mich. 1974) (footnotes omitted), aff'd, 519 F.2d 119 (6th Cir.1975) (appellate court did not reach collateral estoppel issue because evidence excluded by lower court on collateral estoppel ground would not have altered the result), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 987, 96 S.Ct. 395, 46 L.Ed.2d 304 (1975). The issue of consent was plainly raised from the first day of the BW action. A hearing was held that day at which the Feights' attorney claimed the Murrays were trespassing and the Murrays' attorney responded that the Feights had consented to the re-entry. Moreover, the superior court ruled that the issue of consent was relevant to the validity of the Murrays' claimed lien. [1] In opposing BW 's motion to compel, the Murrays themselves acknowledged that consent might operate to cure any defect in the manner in which the repossession was effected. On appeal, the Murrays do not argue that they were in any way prevented from presenting evidence on the consent issue. In fact, in their motion for reconsideration of the grant of summary judgment in BW, they introduced deposition testimony of Peter Murray about the repossession. The BW court found that this testimony, which can best be characterized as evasive and ambiguous, did not create an issue of fact and denied the motion for reconsideration. The consent issue was, therefore, actually adjudicated, and may properly support a claim of collateral estoppel. Palfy v. First Bank of Valdez, 471 P.2d 379, 384 (Alaska 1970). In the context of giving collateral estoppel effect to a default judgment, one court reasoned, The law cannot force a party to make the best case possible or even any case at all, it only permits him to do so, prompted by his own self-interest. Overseas Motors, Inc., 375 F. Supp. at 516 n. 49. [2] The Murrays received a full and fair hearing on the issue of consent in BW.