Court Opinion

ID: 9689262
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 18:26:33.814559+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:46.544002
License: Public Domain

Hannon, D.J.,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. Before the judgment in the replevin action was entered, the allegations of the affirmative defense and counterclaim that were founded upon fraud and economic duress were dismissed without prejudice, because these issues were then being litigated in an adversary proceeding in defendants’ bankruptcy. I am of the opinion that the following from 46 Am. Jur. 2d Judgments § 490 (1969) is the correct rule:
The general rule that a judgment “without prejudice” does not operate as res judicata applies to a judgment rendered without prejudice to the rights of the defendant. Such a judgment shows that the merits of affirmative *579matter set up by the defendant have not been determined, and that the defendant accordingly may adjudicate such matter in a subsequent action brought by him. This is true as to a judgment dismissing a cause as to one of the defendants “without prejudice” to the rights of such defendant against any of the other parties to the action. The rule also applies where the defendant interposes a counterclaim and a judgment is rendered in favor of the plaintiff “without prejudice” to the counterclaim asserted by the defendant. With respect to such matters, the defendant stands, in all respects, as if he had never been a party to the action.
The plaintiff made no showing that the issues of fraud and economic duress were actually litigated by a bankruptcy court, and the defendants have thus been denied a right to litigate these issues.