Jasser v. Saadeh
103 So. 3d 982
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2012Background
- Appellants are Karim Saadeh's children suing to establish a trust in their favor against their father.
- A professional guardian procured Saadeh's signature on an express trust that transferred his assets.
- The trust was for Saadeh's lifetime with remainder to appellants, who were trustees.
- Saadeh later contested the trust's formation on capacity grounds; the prior case held the trust void ab initio.
- The children, as trustees, filed a second declaratory action seeking to determine trust validity and to join the guardian and counsel for owed fees.
- Trial court dismissed the second suit as barred by res judicata; the appellate court reviews de novo.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the second suit barred by res judicata? | Children argue identities match; issues could have been litigated earlier. | Saadeh argues prior judgment on the merits bars relitigation. | Yes; res judicata applies. |
| Are the guardian and counsel indispensable parties? | Appellants seek joinder as necessary parties. | Not indispensable per law. | Not indispensable; no abuse of discretion in denial. |
| Was the trust void ab initio, not voidable, affecting estoppel? | Trust formation invalidates any resulting trust relief. | Trust invalidates, but resulting trust returns assets to settlor. | Trust void ab initio; resulting trust relief satisfied in first suit. |
| Did the first suit preclude the second as to relief sought? | First suit already resolved disposition of assets. | Res judicata bars second action on same claim. | Yes; second action barred by res judicata. |
Key Cases Cited
- Florida Dept. of Transportation v. Juliano, 801 So.2d 101 (Fla. 2001) (res judicata elements and scope of final judgment)
- Tyson v. Viacom, Inc., 890 So.2d 1205 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (four identity criteria for res judicata)
- Freehling v. MGIC Fin. Corp., 437 So.2d 191 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983) (identity of things sued for and parties required)
- Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Indus. Contracting Co., 260 So.2d 860 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972) (broad meaning of 'parties' for res judicata)
- Stogniew v. McQueen, 656 So.2d 917 (Fla. 1995) (real party in interest concept in privity)
- Se. Fid. Ins. Co. v. Rice, 515 So.2d 240 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987) (interpretation of party status for res judicata)
- Kimbrell v. Paige, 448 So.2d 1009 (Fla. 1984) (illustrates res judicata scope)
- Wade v. Clower, 114 So. 548 (Fla. 1927) (earlier precedent cited on res judicata)