I. The debtor can have a winning defense against a debt claim attempting to re-litigate the same issues, on the basis of res judicata, if 4 particular factors between the previous and the newly initiated case are the same. Res Judicata is a doctrine used to maintain final judgements within court proceedings. Mintz v. Carlton House Partners, Ltd., 407 Pa.Super. Ct. 464 474 (1991). The four factors are “identity of issues,” “identity of causes of action,” “identity of persons and parties to the action,” and “identity of the quality or capacity of the parties suing or sued. Mintz v. Carlton House Partners, Ltd., 407 Pa.Super. Ct. 464 474 (1991). The debtor can meet the identity of issues factor because the composition of the debt is the same, although the damages differ between the original and amended complaints. Also, the debtor can meet the second factor because the individual is being sued for breach of agreement to repay the account balance and unjust enrichment in both complaints. Lastly, factors three and four can be met because the creditor and debtor are both the parties mentioned in the …show more content…
To assert res judicata this must be true. Additionally, differences in technicalities do not invalidate this rule. In Hochman v. Mortgage Finance Corporation of Pennsylvania, the plaintiffs filed against the defendant alleging mismanagement. Hochman v. Mortgage Finance Corporation of Pennsylvania, 289 Pa.260,253 (1927). After the court decided in the defendants favor, the plaintiff, in person of another executive, filed an action in regards to the same issue. Hochman v. Mortgage Finance Corporation of Pennsylvania, 289 Pa.260,253 (1927). the Court of Common Pleas held that all four factors of res judicata was present, and the detailed difference in remedies did not alter the decision that the two cases before the court were the same. Hochman v. Mortgage Finance Corporation of Pennsylvania, 289 Pa.260,265