Harllee v. Procacci
154 So. 3d 1145
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2014Background
- Harllee plaintiffs owned shares in Harllee Packing, Inc.; 2006 suit alleged Procacci breached the shareholder agreement by refusing to sell shares on a bona fide third-party offer.
- 2008 trial court ruled in favor of Harllees; Procacci appealed and the Second District affirmed in 2009; Harllees sought supplemental relief regarding 2007 dividends.
- Trial court denied supplemental relief; that denial was affirmed per curiam in 2010.
- In 2011, Harllees filed a second action for restitution, alleging Procacci unjustly retained 2007 dividends while ownership remained unresolved.
- Procacci moved for summary judgment arguing res judicata and rule against splitting causes of action; trial court granted summary judgment for Procacci.
- Appellate court held neither res judicata nor the rule against splitting actions barred the restitution claim and reversed/remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the rule against splitting causes of action bar restitution? | Harllees contend claim not accruing earlier avoided splitting; | Procacci argues split causes of action applies to bar restitution | No; rule does not apply because accrual differed and items are separate acts |
| Does res judicata bar restitution claim? | Different thing sued for; not identical identities under prongs | Could have been raised in first action; prongs satisfied | Not barred; four identities not met since the thing sued and the cause of action differ |
Key Cases Cited
- Tyson v. Viacom, Inc., 890 So.2d 1205 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (rule against splitting requires all damages from a single act be claimed in one suit)
- Gilbert v. Fla. Power & Light Co., 981 So.2d 609 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (accrual governs whether a new claim is available to join with an existing action)
- Larson & Larson, P.A. v. TSE Indus., Inc., 22 So.3d 36 (Fla. 2009) (rule does not require joinder if underlying claim has not accrued)
- Scovell v. Delco Oil Co., 798 So.2d 844 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (two actions may arise from separate acts by the defendant)
- Rosenthal v. Scott, 150 So.2d 433 (Fla. 1961) (underlying rationale of res judicata should not defeat ends of justice when convenient for wrongdoer)
- Gordon v. Gordon, 59 So.2d 40 (Fla. 1952) (four identities required for res judicata)
- Olesh v. Greenberg, 138 So.3d 561 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014) (accrual analysis in subsequent related claims)
- Jasser v. Saadeh, 103 So.3d 982 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (trusts validity litigation; successive actions analysis)
- Topps v. State, 865 So.2d 1253 (Fla. 2004) (identity of the thing sued for and the cause of action in res judicata)