Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed January =
29,=20
2008.
In The
Fourteenth=20
Court of Appeals
____________
NO. 14-06-00965-CV
____________
DENIA M.=20
MENDENHALL, =
Appellant
V.
THE ESTATE=20
OF JAMES MENDENHALL, DECEASED, =
Appellee
On Appeal from the =
234th District Court
Harris County, =
Texas
Trial Court Cause =
No. 2004-22790
M E M O R=20
A N D U M O P I N I O N
Appellant=20
Denia M. Mendenhall appeals a summary judgment in favor of =
the=20
Estate of James Mendenhall, Deceased. In one point of error, =
Denia=20
Mendenhall contends that the trial court erred in granting summary =
judgment based on res judicata and the Full Faith and Credit =
Clause. =20
We affirm.
I. =20
Factual and Procedural History
This=20
appeal arises out of a claim filed by Denia Mendenhall (Appellant) =
against=20
the estate of her father, James Mendenhall. The estate of =
James=20
Mendenhall (Appellee) was administered in Sangamon County, =
Illinois, the=20
county of the decedent=3Ds=20
residence at the time of his death on August 8, 2003. In =
October of=20
2003, Appellant initiated judicial proceedings in the Circuit =
Court of the=20
Seventh Judicial Circuit, Sangamon County, Illinois, to serve as=20
Administrator of her father=3Ds=20
assets. Subsequently, Celina Wise, sister of the decedent, =
produced=20
a will for probate. The will named Celina Wise as sole =
beneficiary,=20
and was admitted to probate with Celina Wise being appointed =
executrix of=20
the estate on November 3, 2003.
On May 3,=20
2004 Appellant filed suit against the estate of her father in the =
234th=20
Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas seeking damages =
for rape,=20
assault, battery, intentional infliction of mental distress, =
breach of=20
fiduciary and familial duty, and negligent parenting for torts =
allegedly=20
committed in Texas. On May 4, 2004, Appellant served notice =
of her=20
Texas claim on the estate of James Mendenhall and executrix Celina =
Wise in=20
Illinois. This notice was filed with the Illinois probate =
court and=20
included a copy of the petition filed in the Texas court. =
Appellant=20
argues that this filing merely placed the probate court on notice =
that a=20
lawsuit had been filed in Texas. Appellant further contends =
that the=20
claim against the estate in Illinois was for the amount of any =
judgment=20
which would be obtained in the Texas cause of action. =
However,=20
Appellee argues that this filing asserted a claim in the Illinois =
probate=20
court against the estate in the judicial proceeding already =
pending. =20
Appellee further contends that the claim asserted in Illinois was=20
identical to the claim asserted in Texas. =
On August=20
1, 2005, Appellee filed a motion for summary judgment in Illinois, =
based=20
on deemed admissions. Appellant responded by filing a motion =
to=20
strike the Appellee=3Ds motion=20
for summary judgment and deemed admissions, arguing that the =
Illinois=20
court should decline to entertain jurisdiction and defer to the =
Texas=20
court. The Illinois court disagreed with Appellant and =
denied her=20
motion to strike and granted Appellee=3Ds motion=20
for summary judgment. In the order granting summary =
judgment, the=20
Illinois court found, inter alia:
1. Denia =
Mendenhall=20
filed a claim herein on May 3, 2004, for damages for Arape, assault, =
battery,=20
intentional infliction of mental distress, breach of fiduciary and =
familial duty and negligent parenting.@ Mendenhall =
attached to=20
this claim a copy of the complaint which she filed for the same =
alleged=20
acts in the 234th District Court of Harris County, Texas, numbered =
2004-22790.
. . .
9. Based on =
the=20
admissions made in the Demands to Admit, it appears that the =
Claimant,=20
Denia Mendenhall, has no independent witness to corroborate her =
claims set=20
forth in the claim filed herein and in the attached copy of her =
complaint=20
filed in the 234th District Court of Harris County, Texas numbered =
2004-22790.
Based on=20
its findings, the Illinois court ordered as follows:
1. Summary =
judgment is=20
granted in favor of CELINA WISE, as Independent Executor of the =
Estate of=20
James H. Mendenhall, as to the claim filed herein by Denia=20
Mendenhall.
2. The claim =
filed=20
herein by Denia Mendenhall on May 3, 2004, for Arape, assault, =
battery,=20
intentional infliction of mental distress, breach of fiduciary and =
familial duty and negligent parenting@ incorporating the =
Texas=20
complaint against the Estate of James H. Mendenhall, deceased, is=20
dismissed with prejudice.
Appellant=20
gave notice of her intent to appeal the summary judgment, but =
subsequently=20
filed a reply brief advising that court that she was deferring the =
case to=20
the AFederal=20
Authorities.@ The=20
Illinois Fourth District Appellate Court dismissed her appeal on =
June 12,=20
2006.
On August=20
1, 2006, Appellee filed its second amended answer in this case =
asserting=20
that Appellant=3Ds claims=20
were barred based on res judicata and Full Faith and Credit=20
principles as a result of the judgment of the Illinois =
court. =20
Appellee then filed a motion for summary judgment based on these=20
theories. After hearing arguments and receiving supplemental =
briefing from the parties, the trial court granted =
Appellee=3Ds motion=20
for summary judgment.
II. =20
Standard of Review
Under the=20
traditional standard for summary judgment, we must determine =
whether the=20
successful movant at the trial level carried the burden of proving =
that no=20
genuine issue of material fact exists and that the movant is =
entitled to=20
judgment as a matter of law. Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(c); =
KPMG Peat=20
Marwick v. Harrison County Hous. Fin. Corp., 988 S.W.2d 746, =
748 (Tex.=20
1999). To be entitled to summary judgment, the defendant =
must=20
conclusively negate at last one essential element of each of the=20
plaintiff=3Ds causes=20
of action or conclusively establish each element of an affirmative =
defense. Sci. Spectrum, Inc. v. Martinez, 941 =
S.W.2d=20
910, 911 (Tex. 1997). Under this standard, we take as true =
all=20
evidence favorable to the non-movant, and we make all reasonable=20
inferences in the non-movant=3Ds=20
favor. Dolcefino v. Randolph, 19 S.W.3d =
906, 916=20
(Tex. App.CHouston=20
[14th Dist.] 2000, pet. denied). If the movant facially =
establishes=20
its right to judgment as a matter of law, the burden shifts to the =
non-movant to raise a genuine, material fact issue sufficient to =
defeat=20
summary judgment. Id.
=
; =20
III. Issue and Analysis
In a=20
single issue, Appellant asserts that the trial court erred in =
granting=20
Appellee=3Ds motion=20
for summary judgment based on res judicata and the Full Faith and =
Credit=20
Clause. Appellant contends that she only filed a cause of =
action in=20
Harris County, and that the Illinois probate court did not have=20
jurisdiction to render a decision regarding her Texas cause of=20
action. Appellant therefore contends that Appellee did not =
prove all=20
elements required for summary judgment because no final judgment =
existed=20
regarding the Texas cause of action, and thus the court erred in =
granting=20
the motion for summary judgment. We disagree.
A. =20
Adjudication of Claims by Illinois Court
After=20
filing a cause of action against the estate of her father in =
Harris=20
County, Appellant filed a pleading with the Illinois probate court =
entitled AEstate=20
Claim - Tort,@ =
reciting=20
the details of the cause of action filed in Harris County, and =
attached a=20
copy of the pleading filed in Harris County. Although =
Appellant=20
contends that this filing was merely to put the Illinois probate =
court on=20
notice of the Harris County cause of action, this filing gave the =
probate=20
court authority to adjudicate the claim. See Estate of =
Rice v.=20
Cont=3Dl Ill.=20
Nat=3Dl Bank=20
& Trust Co. of Chicago, 96 Ill.=20
App. 3d 1137, 1139, 421 N.E.2d 1034, 1037 (2d Dist. 1981) (holding =
that=20
the trial court Ahad the=20
authority to adjudicate the matter presented to it by the filing =
of the=20
document in the form of a claim in the probate court. . . [and] =
the trial=20
court was not obligated to treat the document filed in the probate =
proceedings as a mere notice of action pending@). =20
Additionally, the order signed by the Illinois court granting the=20
estate=3Ds motion=20
for summary judgment is a final judgment that specifically =
addressed the=20
Texas cause of action, as shown by the following language included =
in the=20
judgment:
The claim filed =
herein by=20
Denia Mendenhall on May 3, 2004, for Arape, assault, =
battery,=20
intentional infliction of mental distress, breach of fiduciary and =
familial duty and negligent parenting@ incorporating the =
Texas=20
complaint against the Estate of James H. Mendenhall, deceased, is=20
dismissed with prejudice.
B. =20
Res Judicata
Appellee=20
responded to the cause of action in Harris County by filing its =
second=20
amended answer, asserting the affirmative defenses of res judicata =
and the=20
Full Faith and Credit Clause. Appellee then filed a motion =
for=20
summary judgment in Harris County based on res judicata and the =
Full Faith=20
and Credit Clause.
Res=20
judicata, or claim preclusion, precludes relitigation of claims =
that have=20
been finally adjudicated or those arising out of the same subject =
matter=20
that could have been litigated in the prior action. Barr =
v.=20
Resolution Trust Corp., 837 S.W.2d 627, 628 (Tex. =
1992). =20
Collateral estoppel, or issue preclusion, prevents relitigation of =
particular issues already resolved in a prior suit. =
Id. =20
The policies behind the doctrines reflect the need to bring =
all=20
litigation to an end, prevent vexatious litigation, maintain =
stability of=20
court decisions, promote judicial economy, and prevent double=20
recovery. Welch v. Hbabar, 110 S.W.3d 601, 609 =
(Tex.=20
App.CHouston[14th=20
Dist.] 2003, pet. denied). Res judicata requires proof of =
the=20
following elements: (1) a prior final judgment on the merits by a =
court of=20
competent jurisdiction; (2) identity of parties or those in =
privity with=20
them; and (3) a second action based on the same claims as were =
raised, or=20
could have been raised, in the first action. Amstadt v. =
U.S.=20
Brass Corp., 919 S.W.2d 644, 654 (Tex. 1996). =
Appellant=20
claims that the estate was unable to satisfy the third requirement =
because=20
the filing in the Illinois probate court was merely to place the =
court on=20
notice of the claim pending in Harris County. Appellant =
contends the=20
cause of action could not be raised in the Illinois proceeding =
because the=20
Illinois Deadman=3Ds Statute=20
barred certain admissions by the decedent that would be admissible =
under=20
the Deadman=3Ds Statute=20
in Texas; however, whether the Texas Deadman=3Ds Statute=20
supports broader admissions by the decedent than the comparable =
Illinois=20
statute has no bearing on the res judicata of the Illinois =
judgment. =20
We conclude that the estate satisfied all three elements necessary =
for res=20
judicata: (1) the probate court was a court of competent =
jurisdiction who=20
rendered a final judgment on the merits regarding the Harris =
County cause=20
of action, (2) both claims involve the same parties, and (3) the =
second=20
action is based on the same claims that were raised in the first=20
action. Because movant=3Ds summary=20
judgment motion and evidence facially establish the defense of res =
judicata, and because the non-movant failed to raise a fact issue =
as to=20
whether the affirmative defense was meritorious, =
Appellant=3Ds=20
challenge to the summary judgment fails. Accordingly, we =
overrule=20
this issue.
=
; =
=20
IV. Conclusion
Based on=20
the foregoing, we find that the trial court did not err in =
granting=20
Appellee=3Ds motion=20
for summary judgment. Therefore we affirm the judgment of =
the trial=20
court. =20
=
&=
nbsp; &n=
bsp; =20
/s/ =20
Frank Price
Senior=20
Justice
Judgment rendered =
and=20
Memorandum Opinion filed January 29, 2008.
Panel consists of =
Justices=20
Yates, Guzman, and Price.
U.S. Const. art. IV, ' 1.
Senior Justice Frank Price =
sitting by=20
=
assignment. |