On the other hand, confidence that nothing more can be at risk than the limited amount demanded in the small-claims complaint would encourage acceptance of the speedy, informal and inexpensive dispute-resolution techniques of the Small Claims Division. Otherwise, the apprehension that much more may be at stake than the modest small claims complaint would suggest – the recognition, by the well-informed and prudent, that however small the claim, a small-claims defendant must hire an attorney, if only to opine as to possible collateral estoppel effects of judgment – clearly must discourage acceptance and use of the small-claims system. This Court could promote the Small Claims Divisions’ fulfillment of their purpose by teaching explicitly that, under the principles set forth in the Second Restatement of Judgments, § 28 (1) and (3), Small Claims Division judgments will not be accorded issue-preclusive effect in subsequent actions. §§ 22-501 through 22-524 should not be accorded issue-preclusive effect in subsequent actions. Once the dollar figures are adjusted for thirty years’ inflation, § 28, Comment d, Illustrations 6 and 7 could have been written for the express purpose of showing that judgments of the Small Claims Divisions created by Ch. (2 ND ) OF J UDGMENTS § 28 (1), subsection 3 of § 28 would clearly dictate the same conclusion. (2 ND ) OF J UDGMENTS § 28 (1) is plainly applicable, and sufficient in itself to compel the conclusion that the 2007 Small Claims Judgment did not inhibit Defendant’s assertion and litigation of any of its defenses in this action.Įven disregarding R EST. ĭefendant could not have obtained review of the 2007 Small Claims Judgment, as a matter of law. R ESTATEMENT (S ECOND ) OF J UDGMENTS (1980), § 28. The application of controlling principles set forth in the Second Restatement of Judgments to the issue presented in this case is very clear and straightforward. Whether collateral estoppel, based on a final judgment concluding previous litigation, applies to conclusively resolve one or more issues in subsequent litigation between the same parties is a question of law which this Court reviews de novo. The Trial Court Was Right To Deny the 2007 Small-Claims Judgment Issue-Preclusive Effect in the Present Action.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |