Opinion ID: 1940625
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Res Judicata, the 2003 Case

Text: Frederick, Sr. argues that the second motion justice improperly applied the doctrine of res judicata when granting defendants' motion for partial summary judgment in the 2003 case, wherein he also sought the imposition of a resulting trust on the disputed properties. Specifically, Frederick, Sr. argues that because a judgment had not yet been entered for the previous motion justice's decision on the identical cause of action in the 2002 case, there was no finality of judgmentan element required in finding that an issue is barred by the doctrine of res judicata. Res judicata, or claim preclusion, prohibits the relitigation of all issues that were tried or might have been tried in the original suit, E.W. Audet & Sons, Inc. v. Fireman's Fund Insurance Co. of Newark, New Jersey, 635 A.2d 1181, 1186 (R.I. 1994), serving as an absolute bar to a second cause of action where there exists identity of the parties, identity of issues, and finality of judgment in an earlier action. Palazzo v. Alves, 944 A.2d 144, 152 (R.I.2008) (quoting Gaudreau v. Blasbalg, 618 A.2d 1272, 1275 (R.I.1993)). Here, there is no dispute that both cases share identity of parties and the identical issue of the imposition of a resulting trust on the same four properties. The question, however, concerns finality of judgment: whether the second motion justice properly granted summary judgment after the first motion justice rendered a decision, but before a judgment was entered in the Superior Court. Procedurally, the defendants' motion for partial summary judgment should not have been granted on the grounds of res judicata until a judgment was entered with respect to the 2002 case. However, having held that the first motion justice's granting of summary judgment on the plaintiffs' claim for a resulting trust was proper, it would be an unnecessary expenditure of the resources of both the judiciary and the parties and an unnecessary delay of the disposition of these cases if we reversed the second motion justice and remanded the 2003 case, only to have her properly find, once again, that the action is barred by the doctrine of res judicata. To remedy any infirmity, which appears only of a clerical nature, we first will affirm the second motion justice's decision. And, although we also affirm on the merits the first motion justice's decision, we remand the 2002 case; vacate the judgment on the defendants' motion for summary judgment in that case; and direct entry of a new judgment, nunc pro tunc, to the time period before the second motion justice's decision. See Brenner Associates, Inc. v. Rousseau, 537 A.2d 120, 122 (R.I.1988) (affirming the motion justice on the merits, but remanding the case for entry of judgment nunc pro tunc because final judgment had not been entered before the appeal).