Kellogg v. Green
295 Va. 39
Va.2018Background
- Connie Kellogg and Christopher Green divorced; the final decree (April 9, 2015) incorporated but did not merge a premarital agreement and an amended premarital agreement and left the agreements enforceable.
- Kellogg sought to amend the decree to correct the amended agreement’s signing date; the court entered an amended final decree nunc pro tunc and expressly stated the case would remain on the docket to enforce the agreements.
- Kellogg filed a show-cause petition in the divorce case seeking contempt enforcement and recovery under the amended premarital agreement for $5,000 per year of marriage; the court denied and dismissed the show-cause petition as an improper proceeding.
- Kellogg then filed a separate breach-of-contract action seeking the same monetary recovery in circuit court (Contract Action).
- Green pleaded res judicata based on the earlier show-cause order; the trial court sustained the plea and dismissed the Contract Action. Kellogg appealed, arguing the show-cause order was not a final judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether res judicata bars Kellogg's Contract Action | Show-cause order was not a final judgment because the amended decree kept the divorce case on the docket for enforcement, so res judicata does not apply | The show-cause order was a final, appealable judgment disposing of Kellogg’s claim, so res judicata bars the later breach action | Reversed trial court: show-cause order was not a final judgment; res judicata does not bar the Contract Action |
Key Cases Cited
- Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., 285 Va. 537 (discussing standard of review and party burden to prove claim preclusion)
- Lee v. Spoden, 290 Va. 235 (contempt findings can have preclusive effect when entered as a final judgment)
- Norris v. Mitchell, 255 Va. 235 (final judgment prerequisite for res judicata)
- Super Fresh Food Mkts. v. Ruffin, 263 Va. 555 (court retains jurisdiction when decree expressly reserves reconsideration or other matters)
- Johnson v. Woodard, 281 Va. 403 (retaining jurisdiction avoids finality under Rule 1:1)
- Brooks v. Roanoke Cty. Sanitation Auth., 201 Va. 934 (decree is final only when it disposes of the whole subject)
- Turner v. Wexler, 244 Va. 124 (court can change legal determinations while it retains jurisdiction)