Provident Funding Associates, LP v. Jones, 31 Mass. L. Rptr. 37 (2013)

Citation: Provident Funding Associates, LP v. Jones, 31 Mass. L. Rptr. 37 (2013)
Parent Document: Provident Funding Associates, LP v. Jones, 31 Mass. L. Rptr. 37 (2013)
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts (state)
Effective Date: 2013-02-27
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8358209/provident-funding-associates-lp... ↗

Full Text

1,541 chars

Collateral estoppel, or issue preclusion, prevents a parly from relitigating an issue which has already been litigated or which could have been litigated. See Restatement (Second) of Judgments §27 cmt. b (1982). Collateral estoppel is premised “on the idea that the party to be precluded has had the incentive and opportunity to litigate the matter fully in the first lawsuit.” O’Neill v. City Manager, 428 Mass. 257, 259 (1998), quoting Heacock v. Heacock, 402 Mass. 21, 24 (1988). Claim preclusion “prohibits the maintenance of an action based on the same claim that was the subject of an earlier action between the same parties or their privies.” Heacock, 402 Mass, at 24 n.2. While the other defendants in this action were not parties to Henry I, they were in privity with Ms. Henry because as residents of the Property they could have brought claims against Provident arising out of the subject matter of Henry I. See In re Weiss, 460 Mass. 1012, 1013 (2011) (explaining that parties are in privity when they could have joined the previous action because they had standing in that proceeding); Black’s Law Dictionary 1217 (7th ed. 1999) (Privity is “[t]he connection or relationship between two parties, each having a legally recognized interest in the same subject matter”). Thus, as this court treats Judge Kaplan’s decision as a final judgment On the merits,6 the only remaining question is whether the issues and causes of actions in Henry I are sufficiently identical to those brought by the defendants in this case. Counterclaim I

Other Sections in This Document (41)

Full Text