In their second lawsuit against the loan servicer, the borrowers again brought varying tort claims including intentional infliction of emotional distress, interference with business relations, and defamation, all related to the lenders’ collection efforts. The borrowers alleged conduct that occurred after their first lawsuit.

The Court of appeals upheld the dismissal of the action based upon collateral estoppel. The Court determined that the borrowers were barred from relitigating the issues of whether the lender used unreasonable collection practices even though some of the alleged conduct occurred after the first suit. The Court reasoned that both suits alleged the same kind of conduct between the same parties, and was actually litigated in the prior suit resulting in summary judgment for the lender. The Court also found that each claim failed on the elements as a matter of law.

Click to read Court's Decision