Opinion ID: 1686215
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: did the trial court err in barring the wrongful foreclosure action on the ground of collateral estoppel?

Text: Yes. The trial court apparently concluded that Southern Land should have joined its claim for damages in the wrongful foreclosure action in its last suit to stop Dobbs' foreclosure. Although the findings of fact in the last injunction action stated that Southern Land was not guilty of waste, it was silent as to whether Dobbs' initiation of the foreclosure proceeding was wrongful or fraudulent. This proposition is controlled by Dunaway v. W.H. Hopper & Associates, Inc., 422 So.2d 749 (Miss. 1982), in which we said: Collateral estoppel applies only to questions actually litigated in a prior suit, and not to questions which might have been litigated. Id. at 751. See also, Johnson v. Bagby, 252 Miss. 125, 171 So.2d 327, 331 (1965). Furthermore, we have held that a chancellor did not have authority to allow attorney's fees to a plaintiff in his successful action seeking permanent injunctive relief. In Jones v. Ackerman, 403 So.2d 1282 (Miss. 1981), we said: We find no authority one way or the other on this question. The legislature has not seen fit to grant such authority. It has only granted authority for the Chancellor to allow damages to the respondent in injunction proceedings in the event the injunction was wrongfully sought. Miss. Code Ann. § 11-13-37 (1972). See also Griffith, Mississippi Chancery Practice, §§ 464-65 (2nd ed. 1950) Id. at 1284. Bush v. City of Laurel, 234 Miss. 93, 105 So.2d 562 (1958), also applies to this second assignment of error. In Bush, a property owner was involved in a number of prior suits with the City of Laurel over a disputed strip of land, in which the property owner prevailed. Bush then filed an action to recover damages for trespass and for other damages incurred incidental to the prior actions. The trial court dismissed the claim on the ground of res judicata because the action should have been brought in the prior confirmation or injunction suit. This Court reversed, stating: We think that the contention of the appellants is sound and must prevail. The claim of the appellants to an award of damages was not propounded or asserted in the pleadings or on the trial of either of the prior suits and such an award was not essential either to the granting of the injunction or the granting of the decree of confirmation, and the question of the right of the appellants to damages was not embraced or involved in either of the prior suits. It is well settled both under the majority rule and under the prior decisions of this Court that the mere fact that a claim might have been propounded in a prior suit does not make it res judicata if in fact it was not embraced or involved in it. In 28 Am.Jur., Section 309, page 483, Injunctions, it is said: According to the majority rule, however, where damages are not sought as incidental to an injunction, the decree granting an injunction is not a bar to the action at law for past damages on account of the thing enjoined. The theory is that while the court may decree an account of the damages suffered, such an award is in no wise essential to the granting of injunction, and if the plaintiff's right to recover damages is never litigated, it cannot be said that the subject matter of the action for damages is substantially the same as that for equitable relief. 234 Miss. at 101, 107 So.2d at 565-66. This Court concluded that since the matter of damages sought by the appellant in the present action was not involved or embraced in either the confirmation or injunction suit, the trial court was in error in sustaining the plea of res judicata. Dobbs argues that under National Mortgage Company v. Williams, 357 So.2d 934 (Miss. 1978), this Court recognized that where a mortgagor brings an action against the mortgagee to recover damages for wrongful foreclosure, the mortgagor must elect between (1) having the sale set aside, or (2) recovering from the mortgagee the damages suffered as a result of the wrongful foreclosure. Id. at 936. It follows naturally, according to Dobbs, that since Southern Land has consistently chosen to have the sale set aside, it has elected not to recover damages for the wrongful foreclosure. This overlooks the fact that, even if this were true as to the first foreclosure by Dobbs, damages were never sought nor recovered in the actions to enjoin the second and third foreclosures so that as to those separate and distinct causes of action, Southern Land could not be barred by collateral estoppel. The damages sought in the case sub judice in the circuit court were not sought in the second nor third injunction actions in chancery court, nor were they litigated. Collateral estoppel cannot apply. Collateral estoppel precludes parties from relitigating a specific issue actually litigated at a prior time, determined by and essential to the judgment in the former action. Where damages are not sought as incidental to an injunction, the decree granting an injunction is not a bar to an action at law for past damages. Bush v. City of Laurel, 234 Miss. at 102, 107 So.2d at 566. We, therefore, find that there is merit to both assignments of error, and we reverse and remand. REVERSED AND REMANDED. PATTERSON, C.J., WALKER and ROY NOBLE LEE, P.JJ., and HAWKINS, DAN M. LEE, PRATHER, ROBERTSON and ANDERSON, JJ., concur.