- 20 -
Ms. Williams’ averments in the complaint that: “Plaintiff is the
sole owner of the Property [Abagail Ranch]”, and “Plaintiff has
obtained her ownership rights in the Property by operation of law
and warranty deed.” Ms. Williams’ prayers for relief (including
the prayer set forth above) were denied. Moreover, the State
court’s findings and conclusions of law directly contradict
petitioner’s averments in this case: “On November 16, 1981,
* * * [decedent] sold the Abagail Ranch to his daughter Gail
Chemodureau”, and “Gail is the true owner of the Abagail Ranch”.
Respondent has satisfied the first of the Peck requirements; the
identical issue was decided in the first suit (Cause No. 96-109)
as is raised here, viz., whether decedent sold the Abagail ranch
to Ms. Williams.
Respondent has also satisfied the fourth of the Peck
requirements; ownership of the Abagail ranch was actually
litigated and the answer to that question was essential to the
result in the first suit (Cause No. 96-109), i.e., that Ms.
Williams held the Abagail ranch only as a constructive trustee
for the benefit of the “Estate of [decedent]”.
The Judgment in Cause No. 96-109 was entered, became final,
and was satisfied. Petitioner has failed to show that the
controlling facts or applicable law have changed since those
events occurred. Thus, respondent has satisfied the second and
fifth Peck requirements. Since petitioner does not challenge the
third Peck requirement, viz., whether petitioner is a party, or
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011