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
Other Sections in This Document (41)
- Provident Funding Associates, LP v. Jones, 31 Mass. L. Rptr. 37 (2013)
- Provident Funding Associates, LP v. Jones, 31 Mass. L. Rptr. 37 (2013)
- Provident Funding Associates, LP v. Jones, 31 Mass. L. Rptr. 37 (2013)
- Provident Funding Associates, LP v. Jones, 31 Mass. L. Rptr. 37 (2013)
- Provident Funding Associates, LP v. Jones, 31 Mass. L. Rptr. 37 (2013)
- Provident Funding Associates, LP v. Jones, 31 Mass. L. Rptr. 37 (2013)
- Provident Funding Associates, LP v. Jones, 31 Mass. L. Rptr. 37 (2013)
- Provident Funding Associates, LP v. Jones, 31 Mass. L. Rptr. 37 (2013)
- Provident Funding Associates, LP v. Jones, 31 Mass. L. Rptr. 37 (2013)
- Provident Funding Associates, LP v. Jones, 31 Mass. L. Rptr. 37 (2013)
- Provident Funding Associates, LP v. Jones, 31 Mass. L. Rptr. 37 (2013)
- Provident Funding Associates, LP v. Jones, 31 Mass. L. Rptr. 37 (2013)
- Provident Funding Associates, LP v. Jones, 31 Mass. L. Rptr. 37 (2013)
- Provident Funding Associates, LP v. Jones, 31 Mass. L. Rptr. 37 (2013)
- Provident Funding Associates, LP v. Jones, 31 Mass. L. Rptr. 37 (2013)
- Provident Funding Associates, LP v. Jones, 31 Mass. L. Rptr. 37 (2013)
- Provident Funding Associates, LP v. Jones, 31 Mass. L. Rptr. 37 (2013)
- Provident Funding Associates, LP v. Jones, 31 Mass. L. Rptr. 37 (2013)
- Provident Funding Associates, LP v. Jones, 31 Mass. L. Rptr. 37 (2013)
- Provident Funding Associates, LP v. Jones, 31 Mass. L. Rptr. 37 (2013)
- Provident Funding Associates, LP v. Jones, 31 Mass. L. Rptr. 37 (2013)
- Provident Funding Associates, LP v. Jones, 31 Mass. L. Rptr. 37 (2013)
- Provident Funding Associates, LP v. Jones, 31 Mass. L. Rptr. 37 (2013)
- Provident Funding Associates, LP v. Jones, 31 Mass. L. Rptr. 37 (2013)
- Provident Funding Associates, LP v. Jones, 31 Mass. L. Rptr. 37 (2013)
- Provident Funding Associates, LP v. Jones, 31 Mass. L. Rptr. 37 (2013)
- Provident Funding Associates, LP v. Jones, 31 Mass. L. Rptr. 37 (2013)
- Provident Funding Associates, LP v. Jones, 31 Mass. L. Rptr. 37 (2013)
- Provident Funding Associates, LP v. Jones, 31 Mass. L. Rptr. 37 (2013)
- Provident Funding Associates, LP v. Jones, 31 Mass. L. Rptr. 37 (2013)
- Provident Funding Associates, LP v. Jones, 31 Mass. L. Rptr. 37 (2013)
- Provident Funding Associates, LP v. Jones, 31 Mass. L. Rptr. 37 (2013)
- Provident Funding Associates, LP v. Jones, 31 Mass. L. Rptr. 37 (2013)
- Provident Funding Associates, LP v. Jones, 31 Mass. L. Rptr. 37 (2013)
- Provident Funding Associates, LP v. Jones, 31 Mass. L. Rptr. 37 (2013)
- Provident Funding Associates, LP v. Jones, 31 Mass. L. Rptr. 37 (2013)
- Provident Funding Associates, LP v. Jones, 31 Mass. L. Rptr. 37 (2013)
- Provident Funding Associates, LP v. Jones, 31 Mass. L. Rptr. 37 (2013)
- Provident Funding Associates, LP v. Jones, 31 Mass. L. Rptr. 37 (2013)
- Provident Funding Associates, LP v. Jones, 31 Mass. L. Rptr. 37 (2013)
- Provident Funding Associates, LP v. Jones, 31 Mass. L. Rptr. 37 (2013)
Full Text
1,579 charsCounterclaim I (negligent infliction of emotional distress) is precluded by collateral estoppel. Ms. Henry filed Henry I in response to Provident’s efforts to evict the defendants from the Property. In Henry I, the defendants had the opportunity to assert any cause of action against Provident in Superior Court, including negligent infliction of emotional distress. Judge Singleton stayed the Summary Process Action for this very reason, to allow the defendants to bring an action against Provident and others as a result of their misfortune. When Judge Singleton did so, Henry I became the defendants’ forum to bring any and all actions against Provident in relation to this misfortune. To allow the defendants to bring this claim now, when they already had such an opportunity, is inconsistent with the policy behind res judicata. Bui v. Ma, 62 Mass.App.Ct. 553, 563 (2004) (precluding all claims regarding the validity of a lease from being raised in a second action because the plaintiff had the “opportunity, ability, and incentive” to raise these same claims in the first action). Accordingly, Counterclaim I must be dismissed. Mass.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(9); see Day v. Kerkorian, 61 Mass.App.Ct. 804, 811 (2004) (explaining that res judicata and Mass.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(9) arise from the presumption that if “a claimant has had an opportunity to assert his claims against a given [party], and either has failed to assert those claims, or has asserted the claims and had them adjudicated adversely” then the claimant should not be entitled to relitigate such claims). Counterclaim II