Opinion ID: 1139033
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Res Judicata Should Apply

Text: Commercial Bank initially filed an answer in which it claimed affirmatively that this action was barred by res judicata. Later, it filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the issues had been adjudicated when the Fergusons suffered a dismissal of the Conecuh County action, and again arguing that the instant suit was barred by the doctrine of res judicata. [4] The doctrine of res judicata was recently clarified by this Court in Garris v. South Alabama Production Credit Ass'n, 537 So.2d 911 (Ala.1989): The doctrine of res judicata rests upon the principle that matters once adjudicated are settled and determined. The elements of res judicata are: (1) that the prior judgment was rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction; (2) that the prior judgment was rendered on the merits; (3) that parties to both suits are substantially identical; and (4) that the same cause of action is present in both suits. Dominex, Inc. v. Key, 456 So.2d 1047, 1054 (1984) (quoting Wheeler v. First Alabama Bank of Birmingham, 364 So.2d 1190, 1199 (Ala.1978). 537 So.2d at 913-14. If any one of these elements is not present, the doctrine of res judicata is inapplicable. Dominex at 1054; Fisher v. Space of Pensacola, Inc., 461 So.2d 790, 791 (Ala.1984). The only question presented here is whether the second and fourth elements have been met. In Ferguson I, the Fergusons could have posted the reduced bond and pressed for a hearing on the motion for a preliminary injunction. [5] If they were unable to post the reduced bond, they could have amended the allegation of their verified complaint that they stand ready, if necessary, to post a bond in an amount this Court deems appropriate and could have asked the trial judge to enjoin the foreclosure until a declaration of rights could be made in the case; provided, of course, that the Fergusons gave security in a sum the court deemed proper under Rule 65(c), possibly even in an amount less than $30,000. Unquestionably, the Fergusons could have had litigated in Ferguson I all of the fraud claims they now raise in this action. In view of these facts, I do not believe that they should be permitted now to rely upon their own noncompliance with the court's requirement that they post a bond to bootstrap themselves into a position to relitigate the very same issues that they could have litigated in Ferguson I. Browning, supra.