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.

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 is what I thought too, particulary the incentive part. Why should he litigate a landlord/tenant possession action on a property he hasn't had possession of in almost 3 years? But I can't find that incentive requirement spelled out anywhere.

Wolfram, can I ask a question as a non-lawyer?

What is the landlord upset about? He knew when your clients left, and he's been getting paid rent. Presumably, he could increase the rent with the new owners of the business should he so desire. Why is he suing?