Eric A. Martin v. Cash Express, Inc.

Summary

The Supreme Court of Alabama affirmed dismissal of the putative class action because the Martins were judicially estopped from pursuing claims they knew or should have disclosed as potential bankruptcy assets, and the other named plaintiffs were barred by claim or defense preclusion arising from prior default or consent judgments. The court also upheld reconsideration of the judicial-estoppel issue and declined to consider inadequately presented or unpreserved appellate arguments. Justice Lyons concurred in the result, emphasizing the distinction between claim preclusion and issue preclusion and concluding that the prior actions involved the same claims.