Bostick v. Cmm Properties, Inc., 297 Ga. 55

In January 1992, Diversified leased a grocery-store premises to Bostick; Diversified later assigned its rights to Ingram in August 1992.
In October 2000, Bostick, with Ingram's approval, subleased the property to CMM under the master lease terms.
In June 2005, Ingram sued CMM and three individual guarantors for default and liquidated damages under the master lease; Bostick was not a party to that suit.
The trial court granted summary judgment for the CMM parties, finding the liquidated damages a penalty; Ingram did not appeal that judgment.
In January 2010, Ingram filed a rent/breach suit against Bostick seeking the same liquidated damages.
In November 2010, Bostick filed a third‑party complaint against the CMM parties; a consent judgment later provided that Ingram would receive a judgment against Bostick, but would not collect it directly; any recovery from the CMM parties would be shared two‑thirds to Ingram and one‑third to Bostick.
The trial court later granted summary judgment for the CMM parties on res judicata grounds; the Court of Appeals affirmed the res judicata result, deeming Bostick a privy of the CMM parties; the Georgia Supreme Court reversed, holding the analysis premised on a mistaken understanding of res judicata and remanded for reconsideration.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Bostick can be precluded by res judicata as a privy of CMM parties	Bostick was not a party to the first suit; no adversarial relationship.	CMM parties argue Bostick and CMM were privies with a sufficient identity of parties.	No; res judicata cannot bar Bostick due to lack of adversarial relation.
Whether there was proper identity of parties for res judicata	Adversaries in the second action were not the same as in the first action.	Privies and identity of parties support res judicata.	Identity of parties requirement not met; court erred.
Whether the consent judgment affects the res judicata analysis	Consent judgment does not retroactively create adversarial relation.	Consent arrangement influences the scope of the action but does not fix res judicata against Bostick.	Remand to reconsider in light of the misapplication of res judicata.

Body of Christ Overcoming Church of God v. Brinson, 287 Ga. 485 (2010) (defines scope of res judicata in Georgia: identity of cause, parties, and adjudication on the merits)
Karan v. Auto–Owners Ins., 280 Ga. 545 (2006) (requires identity of the cause of action and parties or privies)
Church of God v. Brinson, 287 Ga. 485 (2010) (reiterates three elements for res judicata application)