About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

Case Citations July 2015 through February 2016 [1] (2015-2016)

handle is hein.ali/relwdmts0032 and id is 1 raw text is: JUDGMENTS CHAPTER 2. VALIDITY OF JUDGMENTS TOPIC 1. REQUISITES OF A VALID JUDGMENT § 5. Jurisdiction of the State Md.App.2015. Com. (j) quot. in case quot. in sup. Credit-card holder brought an action against debt collectors, among others, alleging that defendants committed numerous violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and state statutes in the purchase of plaintiff's debt, attempts to collect the debt, and filing of a lawsuit against plaintiff. The trial court dismissed the complaint. This court affirmed, holding that plaintiff could not collaterally attack the judgment of the previous action brought by defendants. Citing Restatement of Judgments § 5, the court rejected plaintiff's argument that the judgment was void because defendants did not own the debt, and explained that plaintiff had raised the issue of defendants' standing in the previous action and the court determined that it had jurisdiction, which had a preclusive effect on the issue. Mostofi v. Midland Funding, LLC, 223 Md.App. 687, 700, 117 A.3d 639, 646-647. CHAPTER 3. FORMER ADJUDICATION TOPIC 2. PERSONAL JUDGMENTS TITLE D. WHAT CONSTITUTES THE SAME CAUSE OF ACTION (What Claims are Extinguished by Judgment) § 62. Splitting Cause of Action-Judgment for Plaintiff or Defendant Mo.App.2014. Com. (b) quot. in sup. After borrower's loan default resulted in foreclosure of its property, co-owner of the property brought a fraudulent-misrepresentation action against lender and lender's employee, alleging that plaintiff signed the documents for the loan transaction because defendants represented that the loan was for development of the property, but it was actually used to refinance another debt held by borrower. The trial court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment. This court reversed and remanded, holding, inter alia, that plaintiff was not judicially estopped from bringing its claim against defendants because of its separate action against borrower. Citing Restatement of Judgments § 62, Comment b, the court explained that the rule against splitting a cause of action applied in claims of a single plaintiff against a single defendant, unlike the circumstances in this case. Imler v. First Bank of Missouri, 451 S.W.3d 282, 293. TITLE E. EFFECT ON OTHER CAUSES OF ACTION-COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL A A121 For earlier citations, see the Appendices, Supplements, or Pocket Parts, if any, that correspond to the subject matter under examination.

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most