- 12 -
Petitioner engaged in a conversation about section 6015 with
respondent’s counsel, but respondent’s counsel declined to
provide petitioner with further advice about how and/or whether
to proceed to amend her pleading to allege section 6015 relief.
Petitioner also was being urged by Mr. Moore to resolve the case,
and she took his advice.
Petitioner contends that throughout the period that these
cases were in controversy, she was not knowledgeable about law or
procedure and that she may have been poorly represented by
counsel5 and/or wrongly followed her husband’s advice. Under
these circumstances we must decide whether petitioner’s
participation was meaningful in the prior two cases so as to
preclude her from seeking section 6015 relief in this stand-alone
proceeding.
Generally, with respect to the application of res judicata,
the quality of advocacy and the actual knowledge of the litigants
are not special circumstances in determining whether a prior
judgment is a bar in subsequent litigation. See Jones v. United
5 The implication raised by petitioner was that the
attorneys represented the interest of numerous partnership
investors and that little attention was paid to petitioner’s
individual issues. Although petitioner alludes to these
conditions, the Court was not made privy to the actual
discussions or relationship that petitioner had with her legal
representatives, and these matters remain a matter of conjecture.
For purposes of this motion for summary judgment, we assume,
arguendo, that she was not adequately advised by her attorneys
about sec. 6013(e) or sec. 6015.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007