Buis v. Elliott

Summary

The Kentucky Supreme Court held that res judicata did not bar Gary Buis's subsequent claims against Roger and Sheila Elliott for indemnification, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment. The prior action established Buis's liability to the property plaintiffs but did not adjudicate the rights and liabilities between Buis and the Elliotts, and Kentucky cross-claims are permissive rather than compulsory. The court reversed the Court of Appeals and remanded the case to the Casey Circuit Court.

Holdings

1. Res judicata did not bar Buis's claims for breach of contract, indemnification, and unjust enrichment because the prior judgment did not adjudicate any claim or issue between Buis and the Elliotts on the merits.
2. Buis was not required to assert his claims against the Elliotts in the original action because Kentucky cross-claims are permissive rather than compulsory.

Questions Presented

1. Whether res judicata barred Buis's subsequent claims against the Elliotts when the prior action adjudicated only Buis's liability to Cox and did not adjudicate any claim or issue between Buis and the Elliotts.
2. Whether Buis was required to assert his claims against the Elliotts as a cross-claim in the prior action.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded