- 22 -
machinery.” The State court entered judgment against Ms.
Williams, and in favor of the plaintiffs, on every count in her
counterclaim.
For substantially the same reasons as with the Abagail
ranch, we conclude that the Peck requirements are satisfied with
respect to the ranch equipment. Issues of fact were decided by
the State court following a trial. The State court rejected
Ms. Williams’ claim that she (rather than the estate) owned the
ranch equipment. That is the same issue before us. Resolution
of that issue was essential to the outcome reached by the State
court. The Judgment in Cause No. 96-60 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. Petitioner does not question whether petitioner
is a party, or in privity to a party, to the prior judgment.
Respondent has, therefore, satisfied all of the Peck
requirements.
3. Exercise of Discretion
Petitioner argues that we should exercise our discretion to
preclude respondent’s claim of estoppel. First, petitioner
argues that Ms. Williams did not have the incentive to defend
vigorously the issue of ownership of the Abagail ranch in the
State court. In the Williams declaration, Ms. Williams states:
[DV 96-109] was a quiet title action which I commenced
for the sole purpose of removing as a lien against the
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