Lott v. Toomey

13 Citing cases

  1. P.B. Surf, Ltd. v. Savage (In re Savage)

    Case No. 14-00540-TOM-7 (Bankr. N.D. Ala. Jul. 23, 2015)

    (4) the parties in the present proceeding are the same as those involved in the prior proceeding.Id. (citing Lott v. Toomey, 477 So. 2d 316, 319 (Ala. 1985)). "Unless all four are satisfied, collateral estoppel may not apply."

  2. Cadles of Grassy Meadows, II, LLC v. Guthrie (In re Guthrie)

    489 B.R. 440 (Bankr. N.D. Ala. 2013)   Cited 1 times

    (4) the parties in the present proceeding are the same as those involved in the prior proceeding. See Lott v. Toomey, 477 So.2d 316, 319 (Ala.1985). Unless all four are satisfied, collateral estoppel may not apply.

  3. In re Golatte

    Case No. 10-80703-DHW, Adv. Proc. No. 10-8016-DHW (Bankr. M.D. Ala. Sep. 1, 2011)

    Under Alabama law, the doctrine of collateral estoppel precludes relitigation of an issue where 1) the issue is identical to an issue litigated in a prior proceeding; 2) the issue was actually litigated in the prior proceeding; 3) resolution of the issue was necessary to the prior judgment; and 4) the parties in the present proceeding are the same as the parties in the prior proceeding. Lott v. Toomey, 477 So. 2d 316, 319 (Ala. 1985). "If the prior judgment was rendered by a state court, then the collateral estoppel law of that state must be applied to determine the judgment's preclusive effect."

  4. Smith v. Golatte (In re Golatte)

    Case No. 10-80703-DHW (Bankr. M.D. Ala. Sep. 1, 2011)

    Under Alabama law, the doctrine of collateral estoppel precludes relitigation of an issue where 1) the issue is identical to an issue litigated in a prior proceeding; 2) the issue was actually litigated in the prior proceeding; 3) resolution of the issue was necessary to the prior judgment; and 4) the parties in the present proceeding are the same as the parties in the prior proceeding. Lott v. Toomey, 477 So. 2d 316, 319 (Ala. 1985). "If the prior judgment was rendered by a state court, then the collateral estoppel law of that state must be applied to determine the judgment's preclusive effect."

  5. In re Wallis

    Case No.: 09-06669-BGC-7, A. P. No.: 10-00010-BGC-7 (Bankr. N.D. Ala. Mar. 31, 2011)

    Under Alabama law, a prior judgment may be accorded collateral estoppel effect if: (1) the issue involved in the prior proceeding was identical to the issue involved in the present proceeding; (2) the issue was "actually litigated" in the prior proceeding; (3) the resolution of the issue was necessary to the prior judgment; and (4) the parties in the present proceeding are the same as those involved in the prior proceeding. Lott v. Toomey, 477 So.2d 316, 319 (Ala. 1985). A judgment by consent satisfies the "actually litigated" requirement and is, with respect to issues actually decided by that judgment, as conclusive between the parties as a judgment entered after the conclusion of a trial.

  6. Anglin v. Wallis (In re Wallis)

    Case No.: 09-06669-BGC-7 (Bankr. N.D. Ala. Mar. 31, 2011)

    necessary to the prior judgment; and (4) the parties in the present proceeding are the same as those involved in the prior proceeding. Lott v. Toomey, 477 So.2d 316, 319 (Ala.1985). A judgment by consent satisfies the "actually litigated" requirement and is, with respect to issues actually decided by that judgment, as conclusive between the parties as a judgment entered after the conclusion of a trial.

  7. In re Barnett

    BK: 10-70873, AP: 10-70023 (Bankr. N.D. Ala. Mar. 4, 2011)

    Under Alabama law, the following elements must be present before the doctrine of collateral estoppel applies: (1) the parties in the prior suit must be the same as parties in the present suit; (2) the issues to be litigated in the present suit must be identical to the issues litigated in the prior suit; (3) the issues in the present suit must have been actually litigated in the prior suit; and (4) the issues in the present suit must have been necessary for the resolution of the prior suit. Lott v. Toomey, 477 So. 2d 316, 319 (Ala. 1985). When these elements are present, "the parties are barred from relitigating issues actually litigated in a prior suit."

  8. In re Farris

    Case No.: 05-13253-BGC-7, A. P. No.: 06-00121 (Bankr. N.D. Ala. Dec. 19, 2007)   Cited 5 times

    Under Alabama law, a prior judgment may be accorded collateral estoppel effect if: (1) the issue involved in the prior proceeding was identical to the issue involved in the present proceeding; (2) the issue was "actually litigated" in the prior proceeding; (3) the resolution of the issue was necessary to the prior judgment; and (4) the parties in the present proceeding are the same as those involved in the prior proceeding. Lott v. Toomey, 477 So.2d 316, 319 (Ala. 1985). A judgment by consent satisfies the "actually litigated" requirement and is, with respect to issues actually decided by that judgment, as conclusive between the parties as a judgment entered after the conclusion of a trial.

  9. In re Bennitt

    348 B.R. 820 (Bankr. N.D. Ala. 2006)   Cited 11 times

    Under Alabama law, a prior judgment may be accorded collateral estoppel effect if: (1) the issue involved in the prior proceeding was identical to the issue involved in the present proceeding; (2) the issue was "actually litigated" in the prior proceeding; (3) the resolution of the issue was necessary to the prior judgment; and (4) the parties in the present proceeding are the same as those involved in the prior proceeding. Lott v. Toomey, 477 So.2d 316, 319 (Ala. 1985). C. Section 523(a)(2)(A)

  10. In re Taylor

    Case No.: 05-13171-BGC-13 (Bankr. N.D. Ala. Mar. 2, 2006)

    Where these elements are present, the parties are barred from relitigating issues actually litigated in a prior suit.'" Lott v. Toomey, 477 So.2d 316, 319 (Ala. 1985).Id. at 47.