Res judicata; Garrett v Washington; Whether the issues in this declaratory-judgment action could have been decided in the prior case

Holding that res judicata did not bar this declaratory-judgment action, the court reversed summary disposition for defendants and remanded. The case arose from “disputes between neighboring homeowners over the maintenance of a shared” private road. The parties entered into a consent judgment in a prior case (the 2017 case), which “dictated how they were to maintain the shared road. But even after” entry of that judgment, they had issues agreeing “on what work needed to be completed. As a result, plaintiff” brought this action, asserting there was a dispute as to the scope of the work the consent judgment required “and defendants’ financial obligations with respect to” it. The trial court agreed with defendants that this action was barred by res judicata. The res judicata element in question was whether the issues in this case could have been resolved in the 2017 case. While “the parties litigated the exact terms of the consent judgment in the 2017 action, plaintiff necessarily could not have brought the current action to clarify and enforce the consent judgment until after it was entered. Thus, the trial court erred by finding that res judicata barred plaintiff’s action.”