Crooked Creek Properties, Inc. v. Richard Ensley
697 F. App'x 633
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Crooked Creek Properties claims fee-simple ownership of the Danya Park Apartments in Autauga County, Alabama and filed a nine-count complaint in federal court contesting title and related issues.
- The district court dismissed the complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), concluding Crooked Creek’s claims were barred by res judicata because the issues had been adjudicated in Alabama state court in 2006.
- Crooked Creek had previously litigated substantially the same claims in at least three prior federal appeals (denominated Crooked Creek I, II, and III) and acknowledged being the successor-in-interest to Willadean Walden in earlier proceedings.
- Crooked Creek argued on appeal that it holds fee-simple title and therefore cannot be bound by adverse rulings involving Walden because she was not Crooked Creek’s predecessor.
- The Eleventh Circuit rejected that argument, noting Crooked Creek itself had previously recognized it succeeded Walden’s ownership interest, and affirmed dismissal on res judicata grounds.
- The district court also entered Rule 11 sanctions enjoining Crooked Creek from filing future actions related to Danya Park without leave; Crooked Creek did not appeal the sanctions order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Crooked Creek has standing and can avoid preclusive effect of prior state-court rulings by asserting fee-simple title | Crooked Creek: as fee-simple owner it has standing and is not bound by orders concerning Walden because she was not its predecessor | Appellees: Crooked Creek previously conceded it is Walden’s successor-in-interest; thus Walden’s adjudications bind Crooked Creek | Held: Rejected Crooked Creek; res judicata bars the claims because Crooked Creek is Walden’s successor and issues were fully litigated |
| Whether the district court properly dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) | Crooked Creek: complaint states viable claims to overcome dismissal | Appellees: complaint is foreclosed by prior adjudication; no plausible new claim | Held: Affirmed dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) |
| Whether res judicata applies to bar relitigation of ownership and related issues | Crooked Creek: prior adjudications do not bind Crooked Creek if it now claims different title facts | Appellees: prior final judgments on the same issues preclude relitigation by successor-in-interest | Held: Res judicata applies; prior Alabama decisions disposed of the same claims |
| Whether the Rule 11 sanctions/enjoinment order is appealable here | Crooked Creek: (not appealed) | Appellees: sanctions order stands | Held: Crooked Creek did not appeal sanctions; challenge deemed abandoned |
Key Cases Cited
- Roberts v. Fla. Power & Light Co., 146 F.3d 1305 (11th Cir. 1998) (standard of review for Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal)
- Kizzire v. Baptist Health Sys., Inc., 441 F.3d 1306 (11th Cir. 2006) (de novo review of res judicata application)
- Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678 (11th Cir. 2014) (failure to appeal an order is deemed abandonment of that challenge)
- Walden v. Hutchinson, 987 So. 2d 1109 (Ala. 2007) (state-court adjudication on ownership issues)
- Walden v. ES Capital, LLC, 89 So. 3d 90 (Ala. 2011) (state-court adjudication related to the same property)