Smedley v. Jenkins

Smedley v. Jenkins

IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS
 

----ooOoo----

Terry Smedley; and Countrybrook L.L.C., a Utah limited liability company,

Plaintiffs and Appellees,

v.

Lynn A. Jenkins, I.,

Defendant and Appellant.

MEMORANDUM DECISION
(Not For Official Publication)
 

Case No. 20040743-CA
 

F I L E D
(January 27, 2005)
 

2005 UT App 32

 

-----

Second District, Ogden Department

The Honorable Stanton M. Taylor

Attorneys: Lynn A. Jenkins I., Bountiful, Appellant Pro Se

John B. Wilson and Laura S. Scott, Salt Lake City, for Appellees

-----

Before Judges Billings, Greenwood, and Thorne.

PER CURIAM:

    This case is before the court on Appellee Smedley's and Appellee Countrybrook's (Smedley) motion and this court's motion for summary disposition pursuant to rule 10 of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure. The underlying action was under Utah's Wrongful Lien Act. See Utah Code Ann. §§ 38-9-1 to -7 (2001). This court previously issued an unpublished decision affirming the trial court's judgment that Appellant Jenkins's Notice of Interest in the property at issue was a wrongful lien.(1) This court remanded to the trial court for determination of treble damages, attorney fees, and costs on appeal to be imposed upon Jenkins. The trial court issued an amended judgment, which was exactly the same as the original judgment except that the amended judgment added amounts of the aforementioned damages and costs.(2) Jenkins filed a notice of appeal after entry of the amended order.

    Smedley argues that this appeal is an attempt by Jenkins to reargue the previous appeal. In fact, in his response to the motions for summary disposition Jenkins refers this court to his docketing statement with respect to the issues he seeks to appeal. All of the issues raised in Jenkins's docketing statement involve the original judgment already decided by this court in the previous appeal.

    In this appeal, Jenkins would be entitled to present issues regarding the damages, costs, and fees that were the subject of remand. Res judicata, however, prevents him from arguing claims related to issues already determined on appeal. Res judicata involves two different doctrines: claim preclusion and issue preclusion. See Snyder v. Murray City Corp., 2003 UT 13,¶33, 73 P.3d 325.

    Claim preclusion "bars a party from prosecuting in a subsequent action a claim that has been fully litigated previously." Id. at ¶34. Issue preclusion prevents "parties or their privies from relitigating facts and issues in a second suit that were fully litigated in the first suit." Id. at ¶35.

    Both principles apply in this appeal because the judgment of the trial court that Jenkins's Notice of Interest was a wrongful lien has been fully and finally litigated. This is a separate appeal in which Jenkins presents the same claims. Assuming any of the issues raised in his docketing statement were not argued in the previous appeal, such claims should have been raised.

    Because none of the issues raised by Jenkins involve changes made to the prior judgment and res judicata bars the issues Jenkins has raised in this appeal, the motions for summary disposition are granted. The trial court's amended judgment is affirmed.

    Smedley seeks damages based on rule 33 of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure, claiming that this appeal was frivolous and brought for purposes of delay. While this court has sanctioned attorneys for bringing appeals attempting to relitigate already decided issues, this court is not inclined to impose them in this instance with a pro se litigant. The motion for damages is denied. However, attorney fees and costs on appeal are imposed upon Jenkins. This matter is remanded for the trial court to determine the attorney fees and costs incurred on appeal.

______________________________

Judith M. Billings,

Presiding Judge

______________________________

Pamela T. Greenwood, Judge

______________________________

William A. Thorne Jr., Judge

1. The previous case is case number 20020336-CA, 2003 UT App 356.

2. The amended judgment imposed $40,650.00, including actual damages of $13,550.00 that have been trebled, $20,261.75 attorney fees in the trial court, and $14,223.47 attorney fees and costs related to the previous appeal with interest at the statutory rate.