DISCUSSION OF AUTHORITIES I. MS. RUSSELL CAN HAVE A WINNING DEFENSE AGAINST A DEBT CLAIM ATTEMPTING TO RE-LITIGATE THE SAME ISSUES, ON THE BASIS OF RES JUDICATA, IF 4 CONDITIONS BETWEEN THE FEBRUARY 2017 AND THE AUGUST 2017 CASES ARE THE SAME. Ms. Russell can have a winning defense against a debt claim attempting to re-litigate the same issues, on the basis of res judicata, if 4 particular conditions between the previous and the newly initiated case are the same. The conditions are identity of issues, identity of causes of action, identity of persons and parties to the action, and identity of the quality or capacity of the parties suing or sued Mintz v. Carlton House Partners, Ltd., 407 Pa.Super. Ct. 464, 475 (1991). “The purpose
…show more content…
On November 21st , 1986, the tenant brought a claim against the landlord for failure to complete needed improvements involving air conditioning, heating, and ventilation. Within the complaint, claims such as breach of contract, breach of warranties, breach of covenant of quiet enjoyment, negligence, and intentional infliction of emotional distress were made. Carlton countersued for unpaid rent and expenses. Subsequently, an Involuntary Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding was filed against the appellee. As a result, the appellee filed a re-organization plan and the case involving the Mintz was stayed. Mintz requested for relief from the stay on May 22nd, 1988. The Appellant filed a proof of claim against Carlton House, and an evidentiary proceeding followed in bankruptcy court on September 20, 1989. Thereafter, the Bankruptcy Court found that the appellee was not liable to the appellant, and did not award damages. On November 29th, 1989 the appellant post-trial motions were also denied. The appellee filed a partial summary judgement in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas to address the issues raised by the appellant in the complaint, before receiving confirmation on its reorganization plan. The motion was granted soon after , and the appellant …show more content…
Cessna Aircraft Co, the appellant was involved in a plane crash upon take off and sued the manufacturer for damages. The appellee, the manufacturer of the aircraft, knew that the fuel tank was defective. The parties settled for $300,000, but the appellant discovered the appellee’s omission thereafter, which led to the issue on appeal. The appellant filed a claim of inducement to settle by fraud, against the appellee for failure to disclose information during discovery, within United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. It was dismissed on grounds that the appellant had affirmed the contract and waived fraud. This was affirmed by the Third Circuit Court of appeals. The appellants also filed a petition in Montgomery County Court, and it was dismissed on the basis of res judicata. It was then dismissed, and appealed within the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, which is where the issues for our review reached. This court affirmed the decision made by the Montgomery County Court. The court held that res judicata barred the issue sued upon, which was to seek additional damages and rescind the settlement offer Dempsey v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 439 Pa.Super. Ct 172, 174-176.
On November 21st , 1986, the tenant brought a claim against the landlord for failure to complete needed improvements involving air conditioning, heating, and ventilation. Within the complaint, claims such as breach of contract, breach of warranties, breach of covenant of quiet enjoyment, negligence, and intentional infliction of emotional distress were made. Carlton countersued for unpaid rent and expenses. Subsequently, an Involuntary Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding was filed against the appellee. As a result, the appellee filed a re-organization plan and the case involving the Mintz was stayed. Mintz requested for relief from the stay on May 22nd, 1988. The Appellant filed a proof of claim against Carlton House, and an evidentiary proceeding followed in bankruptcy court on September 20, 1989. Thereafter, the Bankruptcy Court found that the appellee was not liable to the appellant, and did not award damages. On November 29th, 1989 the appellant post-trial motions were also denied. The appellee filed a partial summary judgement in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas to address the issues raised by the appellant in the complaint, before receiving confirmation on its reorganization plan. The motion was granted soon after , and the appellant …show more content…
Cessna Aircraft Co, the appellant was involved in a plane crash upon take off and sued the manufacturer for damages. The appellee, the manufacturer of the aircraft, knew that the fuel tank was defective. The parties settled for $300,000, but the appellant discovered the appellee’s omission thereafter, which led to the issue on appeal. The appellant filed a claim of inducement to settle by fraud, against the appellee for failure to disclose information during discovery, within United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. It was dismissed on grounds that the appellant had affirmed the contract and waived fraud. This was affirmed by the Third Circuit Court of appeals. The appellants also filed a petition in Montgomery County Court, and it was dismissed on the basis of res judicata. It was then dismissed, and appealed within the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, which is where the issues for our review reached. This court affirmed the decision made by the Montgomery County Court. The court held that res judicata barred the issue sued upon, which was to seek additional damages and rescind the settlement offer Dempsey v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 439 Pa.Super. Ct 172, 174-176.