Jacob-Hopkins v. Jacob

The contempt order barring all claims between the parties involving a jointly-owned Mexican rental property was overly broad to the extent that it foreclosed the appellant from filing an action for damages allegedly stemming from the appellee's breach of a prior order involving that property.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Patricia Jacob-Hopkins and Ronald Jacob divorced in 1998. Since that time, they have been involved in litigation concerning the disposition of a rental house located in Quintana Roo, Mexico the “Mexican Property”, each being owners of one half interest in the Mexican Property. Most recently, following a hearing on Jacob-Hopkins’s motion for contempt, the trial court held both parties in contempt of a previously entered order, and appointed a receiver to take control of and sell the Mexican Property. The trial court further declared that all claims between the parties involving the Mexican Property were barred by the doctrine of res judicata. Jacob-Hopkins appeals that order, arguing that it is overly broad to the extent that it precludes her from filing an action for damages allegedly stemming from Jacob’s contempt. We are constrained to agree. The relevant underlying facts are as follows. Pursuant to the 1998 divorce decree, the parties each owned a one half interest in the Mexican Property, sharing equally in its burdens and benefits. The divorce decree contemplated that Jacob-Hopkins would refinance or sell the Mexican Property within three years of the divorce; however, neither the refinance nor the sale ever took place.

In November 2007, Jacob-Hopkins filed a lawsuit against Jacob, contending that Jacob was retaining for his sole use certain benefits derived from the Mexican Property. Jacob filed a counterclaim in which he accused Jacob-Hopkins of breach of contract, waste, fraud, and bad faith. The parties thereafter entered into a mediated settlement agreement, pursuant to which Jacob agreed to convey his interest in the Mexican Property to Jacob-Hopkins in exchange for a promissory note and security interest the “Settlement Agreement”. Jacob-Hopkins was to make monthly payments in favor of Jacob.

Jacob-Hopkins v. Jacob

The contempt order barring all claims between the parties involving a jointly-owned Mexican rental property was overly broad to the extent that it foreclosed the appellant from filing an action for damages allegedly stemming from the appellee's breach of a prior order involving that property.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report