Kennedy Development Co. v. Newton's Crest Homeowners' Ass'n
322 Ga. App. 39
Ga. Ct. App.2013Background
- Kennedy Development transferred its interest in the Newton’s Crest subdivision to the NCHA via Assignment and Assumption Agreement containing an indemnity clause.
- Kennedy’s third‑party complaint against the NCHA asserted indemnity/contribution based on the assignment, repeating the same core allegations from the main suit.
- The trial court denied both Kennedy’s and the NCHA’s summary-judgment motions; Kennedy and the NCHA appealed.
- The appellate court previously held the indemnity clause void under OCGA § 13‑8‑2(b) and affirmed the trial court’s denial as to the main claim while reversing on Kennedy’s third‑party indemnity claim.
- The Georgia Supreme Court granted certiorari, affirmed applying § 13‑8‑2(b) to invalidate the indemnity clause in the assignment, and the remittitur led to judgment in favor of the NCHA; Kennedy then amended its third‑party complaint to add common law indemnity/contribution, which the trial court found barred by res judicata.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Res judicata bars Kennedy’s amended claim | Kennedy argues no prior merits adjudication on its common law indemnity. | NCHA argues identical cause of action was adjudicated on the merits. | Barred by res judicata. |
| Whether the amended claim constitutes a new cause of action | Kennedy contends common law indemnity was a new theory. | NCHA contends it repeats the original claim and thus is barred. | Not a new action; barred. |
| Whether there was a prior adjudication on the merits as to the common law indemnity | Kennedy contends it was not adjudicated on merits. | NCHA maintains it was adjudicated via summary judgment on the original claim. | There was prior merits adjudication. |
| Scope of prior summary-judgment ruling after remittitur | Kennedy claims scope could limit post-remittitur action. | NCHA asserts the ruling was limited to the indemnity clause issue. | Court limited its scope to the invalid indemnity provision; other issues not addressed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Crowe v. Elder, 290 Ga. 686 (2012) (identical facts yield same cause of action; reformulation does not create new claim)
- Hicks, Casey & Foster, 288 Ga. 180 (2010) (restatement of res judicata principles; cannot revive defeated claim by new theory)
- Smith v. Lockridge, 288 Ga. 180 (2010) (res judicata applies when new theory arises from same original pleading)
- Waldroup v. Greene County Hosp. Auth., 265 Ga. 864 (1995) (three prerequisites for res judicata: identity of cause, identity of parties, prior adjudication on the merits)