120 So. 3d 454
Miss. Ct. App.2013Background
- Fason operated Hendrix Corner Store and entered into an Oct. 11, 2008 contract with Trussell Enterprises to place and operate an ATM inside the store; Fason would fund the ATM and Trussell would withdraw funds from customers’ accounts plus a fee, with Fason receiving a portion.
- The ATM continued to deposit funds into Fason’s bank account after Trussell removed the ATM on Sept. 1, 2010, due to a remaining deposit mechanism; by Mar. 24, 2011, $18,520 had been wrongfully deposited.
- Trussell Enterprises demanded return of the funds, which Fason refused.
- On Mar. 28, 2011, Trussell filed a criminal affidavit leading to Fason’s grand larceny arrest; charges were dismissed on May 6, 2011.
- Trussell then filed a collection suit on Apr. 8, 2011 to recover $18,520; default entered May 13, 2011; Fason answered May 16, 2011 but did not move to set aside the default.
- On Feb. 28, 2012, Fason filed her own suit alleging malicious prosecution, false imprisonment, and abuse of process; the circuit court granted summary judgment Aug. 6, 2012 on res judicata grounds; Fason appealed in Aug. 2012.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Were Fason’s claims compulsory counterclaims in the prior collection suit? | Fason argues not properly matured or not compulsory. | Trussell contends the claims arise from same transaction and are compulsory. | Yes; court finds the claims were compulsory counterclaims. |
| Are Fason’s claims barred by res judicata? | Claims were not litigated in prior action. | Claims fall within four res judicata elements and should have been raised. | Yes; all four res judicata identities are met, barring the claims. |
| Should collateral estoppel apply to bar the claims? | Collateral estoppel not addressed. | Not addressed because res judicata dispositive. | Not addressed on appeal due to dispositive res judicata ruling. |
| Was summary judgment proper on the res judicata ground? | Questions of material fact unresolved. | Res judicata resolves the dispute as a matter of law. | Yes; summary judgment affirmed on res judicata grounds. |
Key Cases Cited
- Scruggs, Millette, Bozeman, & Dent, P.A. v. Merkel & Cocke, P.A., 804 So.2d 1000 (Miss. 2001) (four-factor test for compulsory counterclaims under Rule 13(a))
- Hill v. Carroll County, 17 So.3d 1081 (Miss. 2009) (identity factors for res judicata application)
- In re Estate of Bell, 976 So.2d 965 (Miss. Ct. App. 2008) (privity concept for res judicata)
- Franklin Collection Serv., Inc. v. Stewart, 863 So.2d 925 (Miss. 2003) (preclusive effect of default judgments on subsequent litigation)