84 So. 3d 900
Ala. Civ. App.2011Background
- Maddox entered a purchase agreement with Ocean Reef for a Florida condo; a $104,250 deposit was placed in escrow via a letter of credit.
- The agreement provided that the prevailing party in disputes could recover costs, including attorney fees, incurred to enforce the agreement.
- In 2008 Maddox filed a Florida action alleging breach by Ocean Reef; he also filed an Alabama action against Ocean Reef and others while Florida action was pending.
- Florida judgment held Ocean Reef breached and awarded Maddox, among other things, return of deposits and the letter of credit; Florida court retained jurisdiction for fees and costs.
- Maddox then amended the Alabama complaint asserting entitlement to attorney fees incurred in enforcing the purchase agreement and preventing the draw on the letter of credit.
- Ocean Reef moved to dismiss the Alabama amendment; the Alabama court denied the motion; Ocean Reef sought mandamus relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mandamus review is proper for a denials of a dismissal based on res judicata | Maddox argues mandamus review is improper; Ocean Reef contends it is proper. | Ocean Reef argues mandamus is appropriate to review res judicata denial. | Mandamus review permitted for res judicata denial. |
| Whether the Alabama action's attorney-fee claim is barred by res judicata | Maddox claims fees are from enforcement of the purchase agreement unrelated to Florida judgment. | Ocean Reef contends all fees arose from enforcing the purchase agreement and are barred because Florida action covered the same dispute. | Maddox’s fee claim is barred by res judicata; same cause of action and relief sought. |
| Whether Maddox could recover attorney fees in Alabama for efforts to prevent the letter-of-credit draw | Fees incurred to prevent wrongful draw are recoverable under the contract and Florida success. | Fees must be tied to enforcing the contract; duplicate relief barred by res judicata. | Recovery barred; fees arising from the same breach as Florida action barred by res judicata. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex parte Liberty Nat'l Life Ins. Co., 888 So. 2d 478 (Ala. 2003) (mandamus review of denial of dismissal in narrow circumstances)
- Ex parte Jefferson County, 656 So. 2d 382 (Ala. 1995) (review of res judicata-based dismissal via mandamus)
- Ex parte Sears, Roebuck Co., 895 So. 2d 265 (Ala. 2004) (mandamus review of dismissal on res judicata grounds)
- Ex parte LCS Inc., 12 So. 3d 55 (Ala. 2008) (latest pronouncement controlling mandamus review of dismissals)
- Owen v. Miller, 414 So. 2d 889 (Ala. 1981) (issue preclusion and res judicata principles in Alabama)
- Equity Res, Mgmt., Inc. v. Vinson, 723 So. 2d 634 (Ala. 1998) (Vinson test: same cause of action in subsequent suit)
- Romar Dev. Co. v. Gulf View Mgmt. Corp., 644 So. 2d 262 (Ala. 1994) (fees tied to enforceability of contract; fees framework)
- Ex parte J.E. Estes Wood Co., 42 So. 3d 104 (Ala. 2010) (abatement statute and avoidance of multiplicitous litigation)
- Ex parte Liberty National Life Insurance Co., 825 So. 2d 758 (Ala. 2002) (narrow exceptions to general prohibition on mandamus review of dismissals)