Searle Brothers v. Searle - 588 P.2d 689 (Utah 1978)

Searle Brothers v. Searle

588 P.2d 689 (Utah 1978)

I. Issue

Whether sons of a party who had a divorce lawsuit against another party are barred from bringing a new trial against the identical party by claim and issue preclusion.

II. Fact

Edlean Searle sued Woodey Searle for a divorce.  Woodey argued that he had a one-half interest in the Slaugh House and that the other half was owned by a partnership with his sons as partners.  In that case, the court awarded the Slaugh House to Edlean to even out the distribution of marital property.  This action was brought against Edlean by the partnership.  

III. Procedure

The trial court held that claim and issue preclusion barred this action.  Appellants appealed, claiming that the trial court erred in that the appellants were not parties to the divorce action and could not be bound by the decree entered therein.

IV. Rule

The California Supreme Court considered the question of the applicability of res judicata as a basis for applying the collateral estoppel doctrine and identified the following four tests as being determinative:

1. Was the issue decided in the prior adjudication identical with the one presented in the action in question?

2. Was there a final judgment on the merits?

3. Was the party against whom the plea is asserted a party or in privity with a party to the prior adjudication?

4. Was the issue in the first case competently, fully, and fairly litigated?

V. Holding

Appellants' interest was neither mutual nor successive.  They claim their own, independent and separate partnership interest of the property involved.  The rights are similar but not identical.  The partnership interest was not legally represented in the prior divorce suit.

Appellants cannot be bound by the decree entered in the previous suit nor are they estopped from litigating their own claim against the property in a subsequent suit since they were not parties or privies in the first action, and the issue raised in the second action was never litigated in the prior proceeding.