Afolabi v. Atlantic Mortgage & Investment Corp.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that res judicata did bar a subsequent action where the mortgagee voluntarily dismissed an earlier one
• holding that res judicata did bar a subsequent action where the mortgagee voluntarily dismissed an earlier one
• concluding that where facts necessary to establish default in first foreclosure action were different from facts necessary to establish default in second foreclosure action, res judicata did not apply to bar second action
• “[Collateral estoppel does not extend to matters that were not expressly adjudicated and can be inferred only by argument.”
• “the facts necessary to establish a default in the first foreclosure action are different from the facts necessary to establish a default in the second foreclosure action”
• mortgage foreclosure action not barred by res judicata due to prior foreclosure case; plaintiff alleged and demonstrated new wrong acts based on different evidence, specifically a new failure to make timely mortgage payments

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).