Freda Boyce and Marvell Boyce v. LPP Mortgage LTD
2013 Tenn. App. LEXIS 748
| Tenn. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- In a FED action, Boyce sued to challenge Appellee's title to the foreclosed property after a February 14, 2011 foreclosure sale.
- General Sessions Court awarded possession to Appellee, with the court ruling based on foreclosure procedures rather than merits of title.
- Chancery Court later dismissed Boyce's Declaratory Judgment/Set-Aside action as barred by res judicata.
- Appellee argued res judicata barred all related claims because the title-merits issue could Have been litigated in the prior FED action and the prior judgment was on the merits.
- Davis, Beasley, and Foster were cited as controlling authority supporting that title merits can be raised in a FED action, but the Court ultimately held the prior judgment was final on the merits and thus barred.
- Court analyzed whether judicial estoppel or equitable estoppel could override res judicata, ultimately concluding they did not apply.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether res judicata bars the title-merits claim | Boyce argues the title merits could not have been resolved in the prior FED action and thus are not barred. | LPP asserts the FED judgment was final on the merits and the title issue could have been litigated, so res judicata bars the current claim. | Res judicata bars the title-merits claim. |
| Whether the FED judgment was on the merits and final | Boyce contends the merits were not decided in FED action since merits of title were not properly adjudicated. | LPP contends the FED action was decided on the merits and the General Sessions record supports finality. | FED judgment was final on the merits; res judicata applies. |
| Whether General Sessions Court had jurisdiction to consider title as a defense | Boyce argues the title merits could be raised as a defense in FED action despite §29-18-119(c). | LPP maintained the court could not inquire into title merits in FED action. | General Sessions Court had jurisdiction to consider the title merits as a defense. |
| Whether judicial estoppel applies to bar the res judicata defense | Boyce asserts Appellee contradicted positions between courts, so judicial estoppel should apply. | LPP argues no oath-based inconsistency; estoppel by oath does not apply to a legal position. | Judicial estoppel does not apply. |
| Whether equitable estoppel applies to bar res judicata | Boyce contends equitable estoppel blocks use of res judicata. | LPP contends equitable estoppel is unavailable; the record shows no concealment or misrepresentation of facts. | Equitable estoppel not applicable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Smith, 387 S.W.3d 486 (Tenn. 2012) (res judicata review is de novo)
- Lien v. Couch, 993 S.W.2d 53 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998) (elements of res judicata; final judgment on merits)
- Goeke v. Woods, 777 S.W.2d 347 (Tenn. 1989) (conclusive rights on the merits need not adjudicate every issue)
- Cotton v. Underwood, 442 S.W.2d 632 (Tenn. 1969) (res judicata bars subsequent actions involving same parties and issues)
- Federated Dept. Stores, Inc. v. Moitie, 452 U.S. 394 (U.S. 1981) (final judgment on the merits has preclusive effect)
- Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc. v. Epperson, 284 S.W.3d 303 (Tenn. 2009) (judicial estoppel limited to sworn statements; equitable estoppel evaluated separately)