The doctrine of res judicata means that a judgment on the merits in a lawsuit involving the same parties will bar a later lawsuit based on the same cause of action; collateral estoppel precludes relitigation of issues already litigated and determined, regardless of whether the prior suit was based on the same cause of action as the subsequent lawsuit.
As an example, an attorney (not attorney herein) asserted res judicata in defending his client's claim that the order to take a 52 week for DV conduct had been completed, and that the Court's order indicated client had completed the class; however, Wife later discovered that spouse lied, and in fact had not completed the class at all. The Court had not asked for proof of completion.
Outside of whether or not this was a 'final' order, it is very unlikely that the "res judicata" would stand since the spouse obviously and purposely gave false testimony (since it could not have been true.) Therefore the only reason that the Court gave the first order (removing the completion of the DV class) was because the Court believed it had been completed.
Even if it was too late for a "reconsideration" for new or different facts, no Court likes to find out a participant has lied directly to the Court!! In fact, such conduct might even be sanctionable since it is wasting the Court's time and the client's money to have to re-visit the issue, which leads to further litigation.
Our opinion would be that most judges would absolutely HATE this because it shows no respect for the Court in general, and we also believe this participant would be sanctioned since his own attorney should have required the client to show proof of the completion to start with. The res judicata should fail.
As an example, an attorney (not attorney herein) asserted res judicata in defending his client's claim that the order to take a 52 week for DV conduct had been completed, and that the Court's order indicated client had completed the class; however, Wife later discovered that spouse lied, and in fact had not completed the class at all. The Court had not asked for proof of completion.
Outside of whether or not this was a 'final' order, it is very unlikely that the "res judicata" would stand since the spouse obviously and purposely gave false testimony (since it could not have been true.) Therefore the only reason that the Court gave the first order (removing the completion of the DV class) was because the Court believed it had been completed.
Even if it was too late for a "reconsideration" for new or different facts, no Court likes to find out a participant has lied directly to the Court!! In fact, such conduct might even be sanctionable since it is wasting the Court's time and the client's money to have to re-visit the issue, which leads to further litigation.
Our opinion would be that most judges would absolutely HATE this because it shows no respect for the Court in general, and we also believe this participant would be sanctioned since his own attorney should have required the client to show proof of the completion to start with. The res judicata should fail.