Court Opinion

ID: 9802225
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 08:59:43.440427+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:59:41.936144
License: Public Domain

Fain, Judge,
concurring.
{¶ 280} I concur fully in both the judgment and in Judge Donovan’s opinion for this court. I write separately merely to clarify my reason for concluding that collateral estoppel does not apply to bar the claims of the plaintiffs in these causes of action.
{¶ 281} The application of collateral estoppel requires that the issue litigated in a prior cause of action be the same as the issue litigated in the later cause of action. In this case, those issues are not the same.
{¶ 282} Arthur and Clymer thought that they were obtaining the rental income from the Cincinnati Bell Wireless tower as part of the transaction negotiated between them and Carpenter. Conversely, Carpenter thought that she was retaining that rental income. In each case, the issue of whether Carpenter, or Arthur and Clymer, would emerge from the transaction with the rental income is different from the issue of whether Carpenter, or Arthur and Clymer, failed to emerge from the transaction with the rental income as a result of the negligence of some or all of the defendants. In other words, the essence of the cause of action of each plaintiff against each defendant is: “I did not come away from the transaction with the rental income, and the reason I didn’t is due to your negligence.”
{¶ 283} The issue in each plaintiffs cause of action is not the same as the issue between the two plaintiffs: which plaintiff — Carpenter or Arthur and Clymer — is entitled to the rental income. In fact, as to each plaintiff, that plaintiffs failure to have obtained all the rental income in the transaction between them, far from *420precluding their cause of action against their respective defendants, is an essential element of that cause of action. Carpenter, for example, would have no cause of action against the defendants in her lawsuit if she had, in fact, retained the rights to the rental income in her transaction with Arthur and Clymer. Conversely, Arthur and Clymer would have no cause of action against the defendants in their lawsuit if they had, in fact, obtained the rights to the rental income in their transaction with Carpenter.
{¶ 284} The issue in each plaintiffs cause of action is different from the issue that was settled between the two plaintiffs. Therefore, collateral estoppel does not bar their claims against their respective defendants.