Victoria Rae Moore - Page 12

                                       - 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           
               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