Schnell v. Mendoza
142 So. 3d 238
La. Ct. App.2014Background
- Bond for deed contract between Schnell and Mendoza on Jan 31, 2008 for a Kenner, LA home.
- First suit (Schnell v. Mendoza, 681-472) filed Dec 17, 2009 alleging damages and interference with contract for concealed defects and liens.
- Trial court awarded Schnell damages for repair costs after bench trial (Sept 27, 2011).
- Schnell appealed; Appellate court affirmed the damages but found the bond-for-deed validity not litigated in the first suit.
- Schnell then filed a second suit alleging breach of the bond-for-deed contract; Mendoza Defendants filed res judicata exception.
- Trial court granted the res judicata exception; Schnell appeals asserting a new cause of action.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether res judicata bars the second suit | Schnell argues different cause of action; prior suit did not adjudicate bond-for-deed validity | Mendoza argues second action arises from same transaction and is barred | Affirmed; res judicata applied under RS 13:4231 |
| Whether the prior judgment foreclosed all claims arising from the same transaction | Schnell contends prior suit did not adjudicate breach of bond-for-deed | Defendants contend all arising claims were extinguished by final judgment | Held; second action barred as arising from the same transaction under RS 13:4231(1) |
| Whether exceptional circumstances justify relief from res judicata | Schnell seeks relief under RS 13:4232 due to alleged fraud | Mendoza resists relief; no exceptional circumstance shown | Denied; no exceptional circumstances shown to override res judicata |
| Whether the pre-1990 version of res judicata law would change the outcome | Schnell relies on older interpretation | Current statute governs; no change in result | No; statute interpretation remains; RS 13:4231 controls |
| Whether the pleadings could have encompassed both tort and contract claims in the first suit | First suit could have encompassed alternative claims | Plaintiff failed to raise breach in first suit | No; first suit petition did not encompass the breach of contract claim; nonetheless res judicata applied |
Key Cases Cited
- Mandalay Oil & Gas, L.L.C. v. Energy Dev. Corp., 880 So.2d 129 (La.App. 1 Cir. 2004) (explains breadth of RS 13:4231 and transaction/occurrence test)
- Chaisson v. Oceanside Seafood, 713 So.2d 1286 (La.App. 1 Cir. 1998) (discusses exceptional circumstances under RS 13:4232)
- Arwood v. J.P. & Sons, Inc., 759 So.2d 848 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2000) (recognizes discretion to grant relief from res judicata for exceptional circumstances)
- Hudson v. City of Bossier, 766 So.2d 738 (La.App. 2d Cir.) (illustrates broad concept of res judicata under RS 13:4231)
- Classen v. Hofmann, 947 So.2d 76 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2006) (discusses scope of res judicata and related claims)