law-collateral-estoppel defined | different types of estoppel | promissory-estoppel | judicial estoppel |
equitable estoppel | collateral attack on final judgment | collateral estoppel, res judicata, and claims
preclusion | estoppel as affirmative defense |
THE ELEMENTS OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL
Collateral estoppel
Collateral estoppel, or issue preclusion, prevents the relitigation of a fact issue already
resolved in a prior suit. Barr, 837 S.W.2d at 628; Bonniwell v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 663
S.W.2d 816, 818 (Tex. 1984). "The doctrine of collateral estoppel . . . is designed to promote
judicial efficiency, protect parties from multiple lawsuits, and prevent inconsistent judgments
by precluding the relitigation of issues." Sysco Food Servs., Inc. v. Trapnell, 890 S.W.2d 796,
801 (Tex. 1994) (citing Lytle v. Household Mfg. Inc., 494 U.S. 545, 553, 110 S. Ct. 1331,
1337 (1990)). A party asserting the doctrine must prove that: (1) the facts sought to be
litigated in the second action were fully and fairly litigated in the first action; (2) the facts were
essential to the judgment in the first action, and (3) the party against whom collateral estoppel
is sought was a party in the first action. Eagle Prop., Ltd. v. Scharbauer, 807 S.W.2d 714,
721 (Tex. 1990); Houtex Ready Mix Concrete & Materials v. Eagle Const. & Envtl. Servs.,
L.P., 226 S.W.3d 514, 519 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.). Collateral estoppel
extends only to issues that were expressly or necessarily determined in the prior action.
Bonniwell, 663 S.W.2d at 818. The prior decision has preclusive effect only if the issue
decided is identical to the issue in the pending litigation and essential to the judgment in the
prior action. Getty Oil Co. v. Ins. Co. of N. America, 845 S.W.2d 794, 802 (Tex. 1992).
Collateral estoppel applies when three elements are present: (1) the facts sought to be litigated in
the second action were fully and fairly litigated in the first action; (2) those facts were essential
to the judgment in the first action; and (3) the parties were in an adversarial posture in the first
action. The doctrine is designed to promote judicial efficiency and to prevent inconsistent
judgments by preventing re-litigation of an ultimate issue of fact.[16] When the party against whom
collateral estoppel is asserted had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the prior suit, that
party may not re-litigate the issue. 09-0060 ESTATE OF BRANCH ARCHER, BY RICHARD K.
ARCHER AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE AND RICHARD K. ARCHER, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS
TRUSTEE OF THE RICHARD K. ARCHER, M.D., P.A. PROFIT SHARING PLAN & TRUST v. RICHARD
O. HARRIS, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS TRUSTEE OF THE RICHARD O. HARRIS PROFIT SHARING
TRUST; from Wichita County; 2nd district (02-07-00243-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 12-04-08)(Justice
Johnson not sitting)(partnership dispute, collateral estoppel, judicial estoppel)
This is a partnership dispute. In six issues, Appellant Richard K. Archer (Archer)[2] complains of a
summary judgment in favor of Appellee Richard O. Harris, Individually and as Trustee of the Richard
O. Harris Profit Sharing Trust (Harris) on Archer's claims for breach of covenant against
encumbrances and for money had and received. We affirm.