Opinion ID: 2625380
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Superior Court Erred in Denying McElroy's Motion To Dismiss Action as Res Judicata.

Text: Judge Beistline summarily denied McElroy's motion to dismiss Kennedy's petition. McElroy argues that Judge Steinkruger's decision in her Order Regarding Paternity and Support should have operated as a bar to Kennedy's petition for restitution of child support on any basis. Kennedy has failed to file a brief in this appeal, but in his Memorandum in Support of Opposition to Motion to Dismiss Action as Res Judicata filed with the superior court, he argued that the second action was proper because he was asserting an independent justification for reimbursement of child support, he was directly attacking the final child support order for the first time, and he had added a second party to the action.  Res judicata consists of both claim preclusion and issue preclusion. [6] Claim preclusion prevents a party from suing on a claim which has been previously litigated to a final judgment by that party ... and precludes the assertion by such parties of any legal theory, cause of action, or defense which could have been asserted in that action. [7] We have held that a final judgment in a prior action bars a subsequent action if the prior judgment was (1) a final judgment on the merits, (2) from a court of competent jurisdiction, (3) in a dispute between the same parties (or their privies) about the same cause of action. [8] Whereas claim preclusion bars the litigation of any cause of action arising out of a claim which has already been litigated, issue preclusion, or collateral estoppel, renders an issue of fact or law which has already been decided by a court of competent jurisdiction conclusive in a subsequent action between the same parties, whether on the same or a different claim. [9] To determine whether issue preclusion applies, we ask whether: (1) the party against whom the preclusion is employed was a party to or in privity with a party to the first action; (2) the issue precluded from relitigation is identical to the issue decided in the first action; (3) the issue was resolved in the first action by a final judgment on the merits; and (4) the determination of the issue was essential to the final judgment.[ [10] ] Because we hold that Kennedy's second action against McElroy is barred by claim preclusion, we need not reach McElroy's argument regarding issue preclusion.
There is no dispute that Judge Steinkruger's Order Regarding Paternity and Support and Order of Dismissal operated as a final judgment on the merits. Following briefing by the parties, Judge Steinkruger disestablished Kennedy's paternity, ordered his name removed from Leon's birth certificate, and legally changed Leon's last name to McElroy. In addition, Judge Steinkruger rejected Kennedy's request for reimbursement of child support in the amount of $1,429.91, declined to order CSED to cease child support collection efforts against Kennedy since CSED had not been named as a party to the action, and denied Kennedy's request for appointment of a guardian ad litem to protect Leon's interests. In the accompanying Order of Dismissal, Judge Steinkruger dismissed the action with prejudice and vacated the scheduled trial and pre-trial conference. There is no question that these actions constituted a final judgment on the merits.
Similarly, there is no question that the superior court is a court of competent jurisdiction.
The same parties were indisputably involved in both actions. While it is true that Kennedy added CSED as a defendant in the case seeking to vacate CSED's administrative order of child support and for restitution of child support, the mere addition of a second party does not change the fact that both McElroy and Kennedy were parties to the first action and both were bound by its results. And while Kennedy was required to sue CSED to prospectively prevent collection of child support from him, [11] he could and did request reimbursement of child support paid to McElroy pursuant to CSED's order in the context of the first proceeding. Adding CSED as a party does not lessen the res judicata effect of Judge Steinkruger's decision. With respect to the same cause of action requirement, we employ a transactional analysis to determine what constitutes a cause of action barred from relitigation by res judicata. [12] As explained in § 24(2) of the RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF JUDGMENTS (1982), [w]hat factual grouping constitutes a transaction, and what groupings constitute a series, are to be determined pragmatically, giving weight to such considerations as whether the facts are related in time, space, origin, or motivation, whether they form a convenient trial unit, and whether their treatment as a unit conforms to the parties' expectations or business understanding or usage.[ [13] ] Where more than one claim arises from the same transaction or series of transactions, they must all be prosecuted in a single legal action or be lost. In the action before Judge Steinkruger, Kennedy asked for partial restitution, either for the amount of child support paid for the period between February and June 2001 pursuant to the CSED order, or for the difference between the amount required by the CSED order and Judge Steinkruger's Order Granting Motion for Temporary Shared Custody. While Kennedy did not explicitly state the basis for this request for restitution, he seems to have been arguing that such reimbursement would be equitable given the fact that he was found not to be Leon's biological father. As Kennedy explained: CSED calculated Mr. Kennedy's child support obligation at $404 per month and based his arrears on this amount. Between February 1 and June 1, 2000, the plaintiff received $2,020 in child support. Because the paternity test shows that Mr. Kennedy is not the child's father, the plaintiff should reimburse Mr. Kennedy this entire amount. If the court will not order the plaintiff to reimburse Mr. Kennedy all of the child support she received between February 1 and June 1, she should reimburse Mr. Kennedy the difference between the amount he was ordered to pay by this court ($93.81 per month) and the amount he actually paid ($404 per month). While Kennedy did not explicitly raise fraud as a basis for restitution in his motion to disestablish paternity, he did intimate in his reply brief that it was a factor in his decision to seek restitution. [14] In the second action, before Judge Beistline, Kennedy asked for restitution of all child support paid pursuant to CSED's retroactive order on the ground that he was asserting an independent justification for reimbursement of child support, namely that McElroy defrauded him and misrepresented that he was the child's father. He referred to the basis of his second complaint as newly discovered evidence of Mr. Kennedy's non-paternity. While this evidence may have been discovered after the entry of the support order against him, Kennedy was well aware of that evidence as well as the alleged fraud and misrepresentation at the time he litigated his motion to disestablish paternity in Judge Steinkruger's court. Both of these actions were therefore based on the same underlying facts and transactions. As McElroy notes: The facts at the basis of both claims are closely related, indeed identical, in `time, space, origin, and motivation and form a convenient trial unit'. The precise facts, evidence and witnesses which would have been necessary to a trial in the first case (had Albert requested a hearing on his claim for partial reimbursement of child support) are required in the restitution case. While Kennedy did not explicitly accuse McElroy of fraud in the context of the first action, his allegations in the second proceeding were based on information available to him at the time the first action was filed. Our case law has made clear that where a party has had ample opportunity to litigate an issue, the fact that he chose not to, whether `because of a strategic decision or ignorance or other reason,' does not exempt him from the principles of res judicata. [15] Because Kennedy could have pursued his claim of fraud or misrepresentation in the action before Judge Steinkruger but for whatever reason chose not to, he is barred by res judicata from doing so here. Kennedy further argued that the second action was not barred by res judicata because he was challenging for the first time the validity of CSED's child support order. Kennedy found justification for this position in Dixon v. Pouncy, [16] in which the superior court rejected Irvin Dixon's attempt, upon finding out that he was not a child's biological father, to file a motion for relief from a divorce decree naming him the father of the child of the marriage. [17] The superior court reasoned that while the issue of paternity had not actually been litigated in the context of the divorce proceeding, it could have been, and therefore, Dixon was precluded from relitigating it at a later point in time. [18] We rejected that analysis, holding that because Dixon's motion constituted a direct attack on the divorce decree of the type specifically contemplated by Rule 60(b), it could not be barred by res judicata. [19] Kennedy argued below that [t]his case represents a direct attack on [the CSED] order that is being made now for the very first time. Mr. Kennedy has not previously sought to attack any order or decree on child support. The fact that he requested partial reimbursement of child support due to conflicting child support orders in no way represents a 60(b) motion or an attack on any order or judgment. This direct attack argument does not lend any further support to Kennedy's claims against McElroy. McElroy has never challenged Kennedy's right to have CSED's order set aside under Rule 60(b). Her only objection has been to reimbursing child support already paid to her pursuant to that order. The validity of CSED's order was not properly before Judge Steinkruger because CSED was not named as a party to that action, and therefore the decision in the first action can have no preclusive effect as to CSED. However, whether McElroy must reimburse Kennedy for child support paid has already been decided. Any arguments Kennedy may have had with respect to that claim should have been brought during the pendency of the first action. Whether Judge Steinkruger was correct in her decision in 4FA-00-587 is not before us at the present time. If Kennedy disagreed with the court's decision, he could have appealed it. [20] Instead he chose to file a second action in 4FA-00-2578 asserting claims based on the same set of facts and transactions Judge Steinkruger had already issued a ruling on. Because Kennedy could have raised the issues of fraud or misrepresentation in the first proceeding, res judicata bars him from doing so in the second.
Res judicata bars any causes of action related to restitution, which could have been decided by Judge Steinkruger in 4FA-00-587, from being raised in the new action, 4FA-00-2578, before Judge Beistline. Accordingly, we REVERSE the denial in 4FA-00-2578 by Judge Beistline of McElroy's motion to dismiss on res judicata grounds. We REMAND with instructions to DISMISS Kennedy's case.