ARE THE ELEMENTS OF RES JUDICATA SATISFIED?
In her second issue, Mrs. Koval briefs the lack of two essential elements to support the summary judgment on res judicata grounds: (1) lack of privity between herself in her individual capacity and in her capacity as administratrix, and (2) no final judgment from a court of competent jurisdiction. Mrs. Koval failed to preserve her claim that she, in her individual capacity, lacked privity with herself as administratrix of the estate by not raising this issue before the trial court in her response to the motion for summary judgment. See Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a); Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(c); City of Houston v. Clear Creek Basin Auth., 589 S.W.2d 671, 679 (Tex. 1979). Accordingly, Mrs. Koval waived her challenge to privity. Tex. R. App. P. 33.1. Mrs. Koval challenges the subject matter jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court to adjudicate a claim over property of the estate. Citing Marshall v. Marshall, Mrs. Koval asserts that federal courts lack jurisdiction to act in probate matters. 392 F.3d 1
Related Questions
- What liability findings are established as res judicata (this is a legal term that means these issues have already been decided) by the Engle decision?
- What general medical causation findings are established as res judicata (issues that do not need to be retried) by the Engle decision?
- ARE THE ELEMENTS OF RES JUDICATA SATISFIED?
