Harrod v. Irvine
2009 WL 103130
Opinion by Judge Stumbo; Judge Thompson concurred; Senior Judge Guidugli dissented by separate opinion.
The Court reversed a summary judgment wherein the circuit court determined that the issues raised in appellant’s intervening complaint were previously resolved in a separate circuit court action. The Court held that the trial court erroneously concluded that the doctrine of res judicata was applicable. Because the tract of property at issue in the instant action had not yet been carved out of the tract at issue in the previous proceedings and because the property boundary at issue in the instant action was not at issue in the previous proceedings, the doctrine of res judicata did not bar the claim.