The appellants, children of the appellee, challenge the trial court’s dismissal of their petition to establish a trust in their favor against their father. The trial court dismissed their claim based upon res judica-ta. We affirm.
The facts of this case are extensively covered in Jasser v. Saadeh,
Shortly after the trial court’s decision, the children, in their capacity as trustees, filed a second declaratory judgment action against their fаther, again seeking to determine the validity of the trust, claiming that their father had intended to create a trust and that either a “common law” trust or a resulting trust arose. They also sought to join as plaintiffs the emergency temporary guardian and Saadeh’s аppointed counsel in the incapacity proceedings, because counsel and the guardian were owed money for their services.
We review the trial court’s order dismissing the appellants’ complaint de novo. See MEBA Med. & Benefits Plan v. Logo,
The doctrine of res judicata prevents the relitigation of causes of action previously determinеd. In Florida Department of Transportation v. Juliano,
[Ujnder the doctrine of res judicata:
A judgment on the merits rendered in a former suit between the same parties or their privies, upon the same cause of action, by a court of competent jurisdiction, is conclusive not only as to every matter which was offered and received to sustain or defeat the claim, but as to every other matter which might with propriety have been litigated and determined in that action.
Kimbrell v. Paige,448 So.2d 1009 , 1012 (F1a.l984)(emphasis supplied) (quoting Wade v. Clower,94 Fla. 817 ,114 So. 548 , 552 (1927)). Based on principles оf res judicata, a judgment on the merits will thus bar “a subsequent action between the same parties on the same cause of actiоn.” Youngblood v. Taylor,89 So.2d 503 , 505 (Fla.1956) (emphasis supplied). Importantly, the doctrine of res judicata not only bars issues that were raised, but it also precludеs consideration of issues that could have been raised but were not raised in the first case. See id.
(final emphasis supplied). This Court has explained that “[fjour identities are required for res judicata to be applicable to a case: ‘(1) identity оf the thing sued for; (2) identity of the cause of action; (3) identity of the persons and parties to the actions; and (4) identity of the quality or capacity of the persons for or against whom the claim is made.’” Tyson v. Viacom, Inc.,
In this action all four identities are present. As to idеntity of the thing sued for, the children sued to establish the validity of a trust over the assets of their father in both the prior proceeding аnd this proceeding. As to identity of the cause of
As to the identity of the persons and parties to the action, in the first case, they sued individually, and in this case they sued in their capacity as trustees. “The term ‘parties’ has frequently been given а much broader coverage than merely embracing parties to the record of an action[.]” Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Indus. Contracting Co.,
Finally, the quality and caрacity of the persons for and against whom the claim is made remain the same. In this case, the “real party in interest” on еach side remained the same. We conclude that the court did not err in dismissing on the ground of res judicata.
In addition, we agree with Saadeh’s аrgument that the dismissal is the correct result for other reasons not expressed by the trial court but argued by Saadeh. The trust was void ab initio, nоt merely voidable. As such, no trust was created. If no trust was created by the document, it cannot be used to impose a trust over the objection of the settlor. No principle of law supports the proposition that a trustee or beneficiаry of such a trust can sue the settlor to establish a trust for another person. Where a trust fails, a resulting trust may be created for the benеfit of the set-tlor, so that the settlor receives back the assets which may have been transferred into the trust. See Restatement (Sеcond) Trusts § 411. That was accomplished in the first suit, as the court ordered the return of all assets to Saadeh. Thus, not only is the prior suit res judicata of the claim, the relief granted — i.e., the return of all of Saadeh’s assets to him — is the relief authorized under a resulting trust theory and was accomplished in the first suit.
With a cоurt having already declared the trust invalid and void, the matter is res judicata. Saadeh recovered his full legal rights two years ago. It remains his right to disрose of his property as he so chooses.
Affirmed.
Notes
. While appellants claim that the attorney and guardian should have been joined, they are not indispensible parties. See Pyle v. Pyle,
. Although res judicata is usually raised in an answer, making it inappropriate for a motion to dismiss, “an exception is made when the face of the complaint is sufficient to demonstrate the existence of the defense.” Ramos v. Mast,