First time I'm taking more than two days off in a row, in over five years. Any wonder why I'm job searching?

doubt I can answer it, but what's the question?

Thanks for playing Stephanie (on edit: and Fred Pete and Vortex and anyone else.) Here's the basic facts. In 1985, my client entered into a 10 year commercial lease with his landlord on premises located in MD to operate his dry cleaning business. In August 1995, the parties entered into a lease extension agreement which extended the lease for one year, and would continue to automatically extend the lease on an annual basis unless notice was given to terminate at least 90 days prior to the end of the lease.

In October 2000, my client sold the business with the knowledge of the Landlord. From October 2000 until today the landlord has been collecting rent from the new owners of the business. New owners never entered into a new lease with the landlord.

In April 2003, landlord instituted an in rem action (strictly possessory, no personal service) in landlord/tenant court to evict my client from the leased space for alleged breach of lease for an unauthorized subletting to new owners. My client told the landlord he has not had a lease since October 2000, has paid no rent since October 2000, and has not been on the premises since October 2000. Landlord went to court and procured a judgment for possession in July 2003. Then proceeded to do a sham “eviction” of my client. All this time, new owners continued to occupy space and pay rent without a lease.

In March 16, 2004, landlord filed a second action against my client claiming, among other things, breaches of lease and various torts for property damage. Landlord is trying to use res judicata from the possessory judgment to say that, as a matter of law, client’s lease with landlord extended until July 2003.

The Yankee-Sox game should be on.

It's on here on the cable channel that owns the Jays (probably originating on YES?), so I'd bet Francona can see the game. Not sure he should watch tho. Maybe he should wait until the weekend when his boys beat up on our guys.

Health-ma to Rio, and another massive wave of health-ma for Jeff. Get well buffistas.

That Cheney/Bush/Alien picture is hysterical.

Landlord is trying to use res judicata from the possessory judgment to say that, as a matter of law, client’s lease with landlord extended until July 2003.

Off the top of my head, I think Landlord can only use res judicata here if your client had a full opportunity and incentive to litigate this issue last time, which it doesn't sound like he/she did. I took a class on this last spring, and it's all in my backed-up notes back home, but I don't have the details here with me. Let me know if it would be helpful for me to track it down.

Eep! Fingers crossed (and do you know how hard it is to do that with swollen knuckles?) for Jeff.

Gronk. Is morning. Right?

Off the top of my head, I think Landlord can only use res judicata here if your client had a full opportunity and incentive to litigate this issue last time, which it doesn't sound like he/she did.

This sounds like what I remember of res judicata, except I think it's definitely arguable the client DID have incentive to litigate the last case. God, this sounds like a property/civ. pro. exam. In any case, it sounds like a close question.

Rio and Jeff I am sending you health ma ~ - not sure if it is as healthy as it could be ... but geez... people need to be less sick than me.

the trombone guy - was something

Lotus Notes is trying to kill me.

Stab it while it's busy synchronizing.

Wolfram, not sure how Maryland law would affect the matter, but what stands out to me:

You say there was no personal service in the eviction lawsuit. Does that mean that your client didn't have the opportunity to defend the action? General res judicata principles require that the party against whom the judgment is used must have had an opportunity to argue the claim in the first lawsuit. (BTW, res judicata is now often called "issue preclusion." So you might want to look for that phrase in your research.)

Another thought is, if landlord could have raised the damages issues in the first lawsuit and didn't, there may be a claim preclusion defense there.

Of course, specific states may have laws that lead to different conclusions.

(ETA: And after reading the other responses, I join the comments on incentive.)

God, this sounds like a property/civ. pro. exam.

That's what it was for me. ;) I think there are more criteria than just those two, but that's what came to mind. Like bon bon said, I think you will have to argue that the client didn't have the incentive, etc.

eta: so relieved to see that the real lawyers said the same thing.