Litsky v. Schaub

The juvenile court had no jurisdiction over claims alleged by the plaintiff in his complaint against his former wife, so the juvenile court's rulings could not serve as the basis of a res judicata defense.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

After Howard Litsky and Dana Schaub divorced, the two litigated custody and support issues in the juvenile court of Gwinnett County. In May 2003, Litsky, proceeding pro se, sued Schaub in the State Court of Gwinnett County for fraud, breach of contract, perjury, slander and defamation of character. Schaub moved to dismiss the complaint, asserting that it was barred by res judicata. The trial court granted the motion, and this appeal ensued. For reasons that follow, we reverse. “In deciding a motion to dismiss, the court must construe all pleadings most favorably to the party who filed them and must resolve all doubts about such pleadings in the filing party’s favor.”1 So construed, Litsky’s complaint alleges four counts of fraud, including that Schaub: 1 fraudulently induced Litsky to waive attorney’s fees in connection with the divorce proceedings; 2 entered into an agreement to modify visitation with no intent of honoring said agreement; 3 misappropriated $57.36 Litsky paid monthly for his child’s medical insurance; and 4 misappropriated an additional $38.71 that Schaub should have used to pay for medical insurance. Litsky further alleged that his wife breached an agreement they had reached in which, in exchange for Litsky’s waiver of certain attorney fees, Schaub would not use a “phone call incident” from February 2000 “for any purpose.” Litsky also brought claims that his wife perjured herself and that she had slandered him by falsely telling others that he had stalked her.

Schaub moved to dismiss Litsky’s complaint, asserting that it was barred by res judicata. Specifically, Schaub argued that the issues “actually had been ruled upon in Superior Court Civil Action File No. 00-A-09631-4 and Juvenile Court Docket No. 00-5917-2 in the Gwinnett County Judicial Circuit.” In support of this motion, Schaub attached five exhibits from the juvenile court proceedings, consisting of a motion for reconsideration and four court orders.

Litsky v. Schaub

The juvenile court had no jurisdiction over claims alleged by the plaintiff in his complaint against his former wife, so the juvenile court's rulings could not serve as the basis of a res judicata defense.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report