Schoenhals v. PSR Investors, Inc.
2013 OK CIV APP 27
| Okla. Civ. App. | 2013Background
- Schoenhals filed fraud claims in 2007; mediation produced a Term Sheet intended to settle those claims.
- The trial court in the prior action ruled the Mediation Term Sheet was not a valid enforceable settlement, leading to dismissal of the action.
- In May 2011, Schoenhals filed the current action alleging the Term Sheet was a valid agreement that Defendants breached, seeking damages over $1.7 million.
- Defendants moved to dismiss, attaching the prior order and arguing issue preclusion, res judicata, and that dismissal terminated the claims under law; Louisiana action also alleged.
- The trial court treated the motion as one for summary judgment, granted it, and this appeal challenges that ruling.
- The appellate framework applied requires de novo review of summary judgment, with issue preclusion applying when conditions are met.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the prior order denying enforcement had issue preclusion effect | Schoenhals argues the 2007 order was interlocutory and not final; preclusion did not apply | Defendants contend the prior order was final after dismissal of remaining claims and thus precluded relitigation | Yes; prior order became final upon dismissal and precluded relitigation |
| Whether the Mediation Term Sheet constitutes a valid settlement agreement | Term Sheet is a valid contract to settle and enforceable | Term Sheet was not a valid settlement agreement enforceable | No; trial court correctly found it not enforceable as a settlement in the prior action |
| Whether the enforcement claim is barred by res judicata/claim preclusion | Current claim should not be barred because claims differ or time limits apply | Identical parties and issue; prior dismissal with the enforceability issue precludes current action | Preclusion applies; prior adjudication bars the current enforcement claim |
| Whether the prior interlocutory ruling could be treated as final and enforceable after dismissal | interlocutory ruling never became final due to dismissal | Dismissal without prejudice rendered the ruling final and appealable | Yes; became final and enforceable to bar relitigation |
Key Cases Cited
- Estate of Hicks ex rel. Summers v. Urban East, Inc., 92 P.3d 88 (Okla. 2004) (standard for dismissal and relief analysis)
- Patel v. OMH Medical Center, Inc., 987 P.2d 1185 (Okla. 1999) (treats evidentiary materials on motion to dismiss as summary judgment; de novo review)
- Lowery v. Echostar Satellite Corp., 160 P.3d 959 (Okla. 2007) (summary judgment standard and de novo review)
- Brandt v. Joseph F. Gordon Architect, Inc., 998 P.2d 587 (Okla. 1999) (preclusion and appellate finality when partial adjudication occurs)
- Raven Resources, L.L.C. v. Legacy Bank, 229 P.3d 1273 (Okla. Civ. App. 2009) (finality and appealability of partial adjudications)