.webp)
.png)
In the context of family law, disputes seem without end. In divorce, there is a virtually inexhaustible source from which disputes can arise – over custody, property division issues, relocation issues, and so forth. Because so many possible disputes can occur, and because people are often unhappy with the resolution of a given dispute, it’s not uncommon for parties to attempt to relitigate the same dispute after a court decision has already been made. When this happens, ordinarily, this additional attempt to relitigate is shut down under a principle called res judicata. Essentially, this principle holds that the same exact dispute – i.e., same facts, same participants, etc. – cannot be relitigated after it has already been settled unless there is a change in circumstances (which, effectively, would make it a new dispute altogether). Naturally, there can be gray areas that make applying res judicata difficult in certain cases – for instance; there may be disagreement whether there has been a change in circumstances sufficient to warrant a new court decision. In the case of Kreyhsig v. Montes (2015), a situation arose in which a father attempted to relitigate a dispute regarding his son’s surname. Let’s take a look at this case in detail.
Facts of the Case
The couple, in this case, never married but conceived a child (a son) in 2009. Paternity was never disputed, but the mother failed to add the father to the child’s birth certificate and didn’t give the child his father’s surname. When the couple’s relationship fell apart, many issues needed to be handled in court, including child custody; one issue which stood out was the father’s dispute regarding the child’s surname. The father wanted to give his surname to his son, so he began attempting to have the surname legally changed. Many motions and petitions were filed throughout litigation, but the trial court dismissed the father’s original petition for a surname change. Then the father filed a second petition soon after that. The second trial court ruled in favor of the father, and then the mother appealed. She argued that res judicata should’ve applied and prevented the second petition from moving forward. The appellate court agreed and ruled in favor of the mother.
The Application of Res Judicata
In this case, the key issue revolved around whether the father’s original petition was “decided on its merits.” That is the key question when applying the doctrine of res judicata because the basic principle holds that something already decided cannot be redecided unless there is a change in circumstances. The appellate court ultimately concluded that the first petition was agreed on the merits and that no material change in circumstances – which might potentially overcome res judicata – had occurred. Factually, this case was quite complex, but it’s possible to simplify the whole matter into this very elementary takeaway. If no change in circumstances has occurred, the general rule of res judicata will apply, so litigants should not be surprised if their attempt is left unheard by the court.
Contact the Murphy Law Firm for More Information
If you want to learn more about this topic, or a related matter, reach out to one of the attorneys at the Murphy Law Firm today by calling 240-493-9116.
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
