Opinion ID: 2759941
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: analysis

Text: 1 Estate of White v. White, No. 2012-CA-01083-COA, 2014 WL 1190245, at  (Miss. Ct. App. July 5, 2014). 3 ¶8. The issue before us is whether the doctrine of res judicata bars Anita’s suit to set aside the quit-claim deeds. If, as Anita argues, it does not, then the chancellor erred in granting Tommy’s motion for summary judgment. ¶9. We conduct a de novo review of a trial court’s grant of summary judgment.2 A civil defendant may raise res judicata in a motion for summary judgment where a plaintiff’s suit centers around issues decided in a previous lawsuit.3 But for res judicata to apply, the defendant must show that the judgment rendered in the previous action was a final judgment on the merits.4 ¶10. A final judgment on the merits is “[a] judgment based on the evidence rather than on technical or procedural grounds.” 5 While our prior cases have considered whether a judgment constituted a “final judgment on the merits” on a case-by-case-basis, a judgment generally will not be considered a “final judgment on the merits” when the first case was dismissed for a procedural defect or some other technical ground that prevented the court 2 Conrod v. Holder, 825 So. 2d 16, 18 (Miss. 2002) (citing Daniels v. GNB, Inc., 629 So. 2d 595, 599 (Miss. 1993)). 3 Little v. V&G Welding Supply, Inc., 704 So. 2d 1336, 1337-38 (Miss. 1997) (citing Estate of Anderson v. Deposit Guar. Nat’l Bank, 674 So. 2d 1254, 1256 (Miss. 1996)). 4 EMC Mortg. Corp. v. Carmichael, 17 So. 3d 1087, 1090 (Miss. 2009) (citing Anderson v. LaVere, 895 So. 2d 828, 833 (Miss. 2004)) (“[T]he prior judgment must be a final judgment that was adjudicated on the merits.”). 5 Black’s Law Dictionary 920 (9th ed. 2009). 4 from reaching the merits of the case.6 If, in the previous case, the court did render a final judgment on the merits, res judicata will apply if both cases share four common identities.7 ¶11. In granting Tommy’s motion for summary judgment, both the chancellor and Court of Appeals thoroughly analyzed the four common identities necessary for res judicata to apply, but both courts failed to analyze the threshold requirement of a final judgment. Absent a final judgment, the alignment of the four identities is irrelevant.8 ¶12. The chancellor’s order discharging the conservator did not address any of the contested issues. As our precedent shows, a judgment based on technicalities or procedural issues generally will not be considered a final judgment on the merits. In his order discharging the conservatorship, the chancellor could have rendered a judgment on the contested claims between Tommy and Anita, but he did not. ¶13. The record indicates that the conservatorship was opened in early 2009 and closed when Bill died in June 2009. Far from a final judgment concerning the merits of the contested issues, the final judgment discharging the conservator was based solely on Bill’s 6 Harrison v. Chandler-Sampson Ins., Inc., 891 So. 2d 224, 229 (Miss. 2005) (quoting Costello v. United States, 365 U.S. 265, 285, 81 S. Ct. 534, 544, 5 L. Ed. 2d 551 (1961)) (“If the first suit was dismissed for defect of pleadings, or parties, or a misconception of the form of proceeding, or the want of jurisdiction, or was disposed of on any ground which did not go to the merits of the action, the judgment rendered will prove no bar to another suit.”). 7 Hill v. Carroll Cnty., 17 So. 3d 1081, 1085 (Miss. 2009). The four common identities are: “(1) identity of the subject matter of the action; (2) identity of the cause of action; (3) identity of the parties to the cause of action; and (4) identity of the quality or character of a person against whom the claim is made.” Hill, 17 So. 3d at 1085 (citing Harrison v. Chandler-Sampson Ins., Inc., 891 So. 2d 224, 232 (Miss. 2005)). 8 EMC Mortg. Corp., 17 So. 3d at 1090 (citing Anderson, 895 So. 2d at 833). 5 death. The chancellor considered no other evidence when entering his order.9 Although Tommy correctly points out that Anita requested the court set aside the deed transfers in the conservatorship proceeding, the chancellor never addressed the issue.