Bryan v. Fernald
211 So. 3d 333
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Decedent's son Edward John opened probate in 2007, named himself surviving spouse and sole beneficiary; decedent's children were not served initially.
- Probate court entered an order of discharge in 2009; estate later reopened to pursue a medical-malpractice claim against Dr. Plantz; administrator ad litem appointed in 2012.
- In 2015, Audrey Bryan petitioned under Fla. Stat. § 733.105 to determine intestate beneficiaries, asserting she and her siblings were entitled to at least 50% (or 100% if John's marriage could not be proven).
- John and the estate responded asserting the marriage was valid and relied on a 2013 nonfinal order in the ongoing medical-malpractice case in which a court found “the person [John] married was the decedent.”
- At the beneficiary-determination hearing the probate court treated the medical-malpractice order as res judicata and, also relying on deposition testimony, found John was the decedent’s spouse and a beneficiary. Court did not conduct an independent legal analysis of marriage validity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Bryan) | Defendant's Argument (John/Fernald) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether res judicata bars re-litigation of the marriage-validity issue | Res judicata does not apply because Bryan was not a party/privity and causes differ | The prior order in the malpractice case decided the factual question and is binding | Res judicata did not apply; trial court erred in so ruling |
| Whether the prior medical-malpractice order was a final order sufficient to invoke res judicata | Prior order denying summary judgment was not final; therefore cannot preclude later litigation | Prior court’s factual finding should control despite nonfinal posture | Prior order was nonfinal; finality requirement for res judicata not met |
| Whether there was identity of cause of action and thing sued for between the two cases | Probate beneficiary determination is a distinct cause and relief from the malpractice action | The factual finding in malpractice is the same issue presented in probate | The two actions involve different causes and relief; identities do not match for res judicata |
| Whether Bryan’s deposition and other evidence independently established marriage validity | Bryan testified to witnessing a ceremony but claims she later learned the marriage certificate may have been obtained under a false name; she retained right to litigate validity | Estate cited the deposition and prior finding as support for marriage validity | Probate court improperly relied solely on prior order and deposition without independent legal analysis; must relitigate in probate context |
Key Cases Cited
- Fla. Dep't of Transp. v. Juliano, 801 So. 2d 101 (Fla. 2001) (res judicata elements and effect of a prior judgment)
- Topps v. State, 865 So. 2d 1253 (Fla. 2004) (four identities required for res judicata)
- Albrecht v. State, 444 So. 2d 8 (Fla. 1984) (test for whether causes of action are the same: whether facts/evidence necessary are the same)
- Wildflower, LLC v. St. Johns River Water Mgmt. Dist., 179 So. 3d 369 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015) (res judicata binds parties and their privies)
- Thomson v. Petherbridge, 472 So. 2d 773 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985) (final order is necessary to apply res judicata)