BVS Constr. v. Prosperity Bank (In re BVS Constr., Inc.), 18 F.4th 169, 171 (5th Cir. 2021). Prosperity shall have an Allowed Secured Claim in the amount of $1,812,472.43 (the "Prosperity Claim").
Claim preclusion applies when "(1) the parties are identical or in privity; (2) the judgment in the prior action was rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction; (3) the prior action was concluded by a final judgment on the merits; and (4) the same claim or cause of action was involved in both actions." BVS Constr., Inc. v. Prosperity Bank, 18 F.4th 169, 173 (5th Cir. 2021) (quoting Petro-Hunt, L.L.C. v. United States, 365 F.3d 385, 395 (5th Cir. 2004)). Nix challenges the fourth prong of the test.
Claim preclusion applies when "(1) the parties are identical or in privity; (2) the judgment in the prior action was rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction; (3) the prior action was concluded by a final judgment on the merits; and (4) the same claim or cause of action was involved in both actions." BVS Constr., Inc. v. Prosperity Bank, 18 F.4th 169, 173 (5th Cir. 2021) (quoting Petro-Hunt, L.L.C. v. United States, 365 F.3d 385, 395 (5th Cir. 2004)).
That decree constitutes a judgment, which precludes any subsequent attempts by BVS to re-litigate the same issues. See BVS Constr., Inc. v. Prosperity Bank, 18 F.4th 169, 173-74 (5th Cir. 2021). BVS also argues that its objection to the County's tax claims here present a different issue from the one resolved against BVS in the 2014 bankruptcy proceeding because BVS' objection in that action was to the County's claims for tax years 2011-2014, whereas its objection here relates to tax years 2012-2019.
. Title 28 explicitly provides that core proceedings “include . . . allowance or disallowance of claims against the estate.” 28 USC §157(b)(2)(B); see also BVS Construction, Inc v Prosperity Bank, 18 F4th 169, 173 (5th Cir 2021). And the Fifth Circuit observes that “a reorganized debtor often must resolve, postconfirmation . . . administrative claims . . . which fall within ‘core' bankruptcy jurisdiction.”
See R. Doc. 6. BVS Constr., Inc. v. Prosperity Bank, 18 F.4th 169,174 (5th Cir. 2021). Houston Pro. Towing, 812 F.3d at 447 (internal quotation marks omitted); see also, Davis v. Dallas Area Rapid Transit, 383 F.3d 309, 313 (5th Cir. 2004) (“The critical issue under the transactional test is whether the two actions are based on the ‘same nucleus of operative facts.'”)
(4) the same claim or cause of action was involved in both actions.BVS Constr. V. Prosperity Bank (In re BVS Constr., Inc.), 18 F.4th 169, 173 (5th Cir. 2021). In Pearl Resources Operating Co. LLC v. Transcon Capital, LLC, the El Paso Court of Appeals rendered judgment for Pearl, finding Transcon's mineral lien was invalid, and entered a take-nothing judgment on Transcon's counterclaim against Pearl.
Indeed, a simple review of the State Court Judgment, itself, bears this out, inasmuch as no reference at all is made to either the Debtor or the Debtor's Vestry therein.Igal v. Brightstar Info. Tech. Group, Inc. , 250 S.W.3d 78, 86 (2008) ; see alsoBVS Constr., Inc. v. Prosperity Bank (In re BVS Constr., Inc.) , 18 F.4th 169, 173 (5th Cir. 2021).John G. & Marie Stella Kenedy Mem'l Found. v. Dewhurst , 90 S.W.3d 268, 288 (Tex. 2002) (quoting Sysco Food Servs., Inc. v. Trapnell , 890 S.W.2d 796, 801 (Tex. 1994) ); see alsoSouthmark Corp. v. Coopers & Lybrand (In re Southmark Corp.) , 163 F.3d 925, 934 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 527 U.S. 1004, 119 S.Ct. 2339, 144 L.Ed.2d 236 (1999).