Court Opinion

ID: 9776531
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 19:38:39.738719+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:32:39.500091
License: Public Domain

Chief Justice DURHAM,
concurring and dissenting:
I concur with the majority's analysis on the applicability of claim preclusion to small claims judgments. On grounds of fairness and equity, however, I would apply the rule announced today only prospectively.
121 First, the rationale we apply today was not a foregone conclusion to anyone reviewing our holding in Faux v. Mickelsen, in which we observed the following:
The general purpose ... of the [Small Claims] Act is to dispose of minor money disputes by dispensing speedy justice between the parties.... Faux and Nacey's counterclaim consisted of several causes of action and alleged damages in excess of the small claims court's jurisdiction. Under Mickelsen's interpretation of the statute, they were compelled to bring their counterclaim and to remove the entire case to the cireuit court for trial and adjudication. We believe that such a procedure would have the effect of defeating the purpose of the Act to dispense speedy justice to Mickelsen on a simple money judgment.
725 P.2d 1372, 1375 (Utah 1986) (per curiam). It is true that, as the majority opinion points out, we were not dealing with the issues of splitting claims and claim preclusion in Faouzx, but certainly someone reading the above language from that opinion might have reasonably predicted that other rules resembling those governing compulsory counterclaims might be suspended in the context of the specialized purposes of small claims proceedings.1 Furthermore, we had previously refused to apply issue preclusion (the other branch of res judicata) to small claims judgments due to "the absence of a court record or other specific evidence concerning the scope of the prior proceeding." Turner v. Hi-Country Homeowners Ass'n, 910 P.2d 1223, 1226-27 (Utah 1996); see also id. at 1227 ("In particular, we cannot determine whether the issue in the prior case was identical to the present issue. and whether the issue was fully, fairly, and competently litigated.").
122 Second, the instructions available to the small claims plaintiff in this case were *1055misleading: they explained that claims worth more than the jurisdictional limits could not be filed in the small claims court without also explaining that any such claims arising from the same incident at issue would be lost if not pled. Under similar cireumstances, we afforded relief to the affected party on reliance and fairness grounds in Kawamoto v. Fratto, 2000 UT 6, ¶ 13, 994 P.2d 187. Given that small claims court procedures are designed to permit and encourage parties to represent themselves, instructions that lead parties into mistakenly forgoing their rights or claims should be accounted for in the application of this rule. This is particularly so when our court had never addressed the application of the rule to small claims cases and even attorneys might have had grounds for believing that we would go another direction based on our language in Faux and Turner.2
1123 Although the majority is correct that "fairness to Ms. Moyer must also bear on our decision," supra ¶ 17 n. 26, on balance I believe that the potential unfairness to Mr. Allen outweighs any unfairness to Ms. Moyer. For the foregoing reasons, I would apply the rule announced by the majority opinion only prospectively and would permit this claimant to pursue his personal injury claim in district court.
1 24 Justice PARRISH concurs in Chief Justice DURHAM's opinion.

. In this regard, the court of appeals' decision in Dennis v. Vasquez does not resolve the issue before us. In Dennis, the court of appeals applied claim preclusion to a small claims judgment. 2003 UT App 168, ¶ 10, 72 P.3d 135. The majority opinion, however, correctly treats this as an issue of first impression for our court. Furthermore, someone reading the language from Faux could have reasonably concluded that this court would not impose claim preclusion on small claims judgments. And any purported reliance on Dennis as controlling law is undermined greatly by the misleading instructions given to small claims plaintiffs. See infre 122 & n. 2.

. Furthermore, one attorney has asserted that "it is common practice for small claims judges to advise litigants securing $10,000 judgments capped only by the jurisdictional limit that res ' judicata does not prevent litigants from seeking the damages exceeding the jurisdictional limit in subsequent actions in district court." Steven Rinehart, Small Claims Courts: Getting More Bang for Fewer Bucks, 23 Utam Bar J. 32, 33-34 (2010).