Opinion
C.A. No. 01A-06-001 HDR
Submitted: August 10, 2001
Decided: October 30, 2001
Upon Appeal from a Decision of the Kent County Court of Common Pleas AFFIRMED.
L. P. Machulas, Dover, Delaware, pro se.
Steven Schwartz, Esq. of Steven Schwartz, Attorney at Law, P.A., Dover, Delaware, for Appellee Alvin Overcamp.
ORDER
This 30th day of October, 2001, upon consideration of this appeal and the record in this case, it appears that:
(1) Appellant L. P. Machulas has appealed the Order of the Court of Common Pleas which dismissed his appeal from Justice of the Peace Court Number 16. Appellant's complaint sought to recover a security deposit from Appellee, Alvin Overcamp. Overcamp is the former landlord of Machulas. The Justice of the Peace dismissed Appellant's complaint based upon the res judicata doctrine because the complaint was substantially identical to another that had previously been dismissed with prejudice. Machulas moved to vacate that Order and his motion was denied. The Court of Common Pleas upheld that ruling and dismissed the appeal. Upon Overcamp's Rule 11 motion the Court of Common Pleas held that its order prohibited any civil action with regard to the adjudicated claim. This appeal followed.
(2) Machulas filed his first complaint in Justice of the Peace Court No. 16 on April 25, 2000. On July 5, 2000, that complaint was dismissed with prejudice. Machulas requested a transcript but did not perfect an appeal in the Court of Common Pleas of the dismissal order. Instead, he filed another complaint with the Justice of the Peace Court on July 27, 2000 which set out the same claim. A judgment dismissing that second complaint was entered on November 16, 2000, because the case had been dismissed on July 5. Machulas requested a transcript but did not perfect an appeal of this judgment either. On January 31, 2001, Machulas filed a Motion to Vacate Decision. On March 9, 2001, the Justice of the Peace denied the motion. Machulas filed an appeal from the March 9, 2001 Order to the Court of Common Pleas. Overcamp then filed a Motion to Dismiss which was granted by the Court of Common Pleas after it found that the underlying claim had been previously dismissed with prejudice by an order from which no appeal was taken. (3) Upon an appeal from the Court of Common Pleas, a civil action is "reviewed on the record and shall not be tried de novo." On such an appeal, this Court will not disturb findings of fact if those findings are "supported by the record and are the product of an orderly and logical deductive process." This Court has the duty to review the sufficiency of the evidence and to test the propriety of the findings below. Under Delaware law, one must meet five elements to bar a claim based on res judicata. The party seeking to bar the claim must establish that the court that made the prior adjudication had jurisdiction, that the parties in the present action are either the same parties or in privity with the parties from the prior adjudication, that the cause of action or issues decided are the same as those raised in the prior adjudication, that the issues in the prior action were decided adversely to the plaintiff's contentions in the present action, and that the prior adjudication was final. (4) This appeal stems not from the original complaint, but from Machulas' motion to vacate the dismissal of his second complaint. The Court of Common Pleas correctly concluded that the matter was previously dismissed and that no appeal was taken from that Order. Because the doctrine of res judicata bars any further proceedings on that cause of action, the Order of the Court of Common Pleas is free of legal error. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas is AFFIRMED.
Ensminger v. Merritt Marine Constr., Inc., Del. Super., 597 A.2d 854, 855 (1988) (citing State v. Cagle, Del. Supr., 332 A.2d 140 (1974).
State v. Cagle, Del. Supr., 332 A.2d 140, 142-43 (1974).
Bailey v. City of Wilmington, Del. Supr., 766 A.2d 477, 481 (2001).
Id., citing Hughes v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., Del. Supr., 336 A.2d 572, 574 (1975); Playtex Family Prod., Inc. v. St. Paul Surplus Lines Ins. Co., Del. Super., 564 A.2d 681, 683 (1989); Restatement of Judgments § 49 (1942).