Bernhard v. Bank of America National Trust & Savings Association
19 Cal. 2d 807 (1942)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The doctrine of res judicata (issue preclusion) does not require mutuality of estoppel; a party who was not party to a prior action may assert a final judgment as conclusive against an opponent who was a party to that prior action.
Facts:
- In June 1933, Clara Sather, an elderly woman, lived with Charles O. Cook and his wife.
- Sather authorized Cook and Dr. Joseph Zeiler to make joint drafts against her commercial bank account.
- Cook, without Sather's authorization, opened a separate account at the First National Bank of San Dimas under the name "Clara Sather by Charles O. Cook."
- On October 26, 1933, Sather signed an order to transfer $4,155.68 from her savings account to the San Dimas bank "for credit to the account of Mrs. Clara Sather."
- The San Dimas bank credited the funds to the unauthorized account controlled by Cook.
- Cook withdrew the entire amount, deposited it into an account in his and his wife's names, and subsequently moved it to another bank under their names.
- Mrs. Sather died in November 1933.
Procedural Posture:
- Charles Cook, as executor of Clara Sather's estate, filed an account in probate court that omitted the money transferred to the San Dimas bank.
- Beneficiaries under Sather's will, including Helen Bernhard, filed objections to the account.
- The probate court conducted a hearing and determined that Sather had made a gift of the money to Cook during her lifetime, and therefore it was not part of the estate.
- Helen Bernhard was subsequently appointed administratrix of Sather's estate.
- Bernhard, as administratrix, sued the Bank of America (as successor to the San Dimas bank) in a California trial court to recover the funds.
- The bank asserted the affirmative defense of res judicata, arguing the probate court's finding of a 'gift' was conclusive.
- The trial court entered judgment for the defendant bank on the grounds of res judicata.
- Plaintiff Helen Bernhard, as administratrix, appealed to the Supreme Court of California.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the doctrine of res judicata preclude a plaintiff from relitigating an issue that was finally decided against them in a prior action, even if the defendant in the current action was not a party, nor in privity with a party, to the prior action?
Opinions:
Majority - Traynor, J.
Yes. The doctrine of res judicata precludes relitigation of an issue where the party against whom the plea is asserted was a party to the prior adjudication and had a full opportunity to litigate the issue. The court abandoned the traditional requirement of mutuality of estoppel, which held that only a party (or their privy) to the prior action could assert res judicata. The court reasoned that there is no compelling reason to require that the party asserting the plea must have been a party to the earlier litigation. Public policy supports limiting litigation and preventing a party who has had one fair trial on an issue from again drawing it into controversy simply by switching adversaries. Due process is satisfied as long as the party against whom the doctrine is used was a party to the original action and is bound by it.
Analysis:
This landmark decision fundamentally altered the doctrine of issue preclusion (collateral estoppel) in California and heavily influenced jurisdictions nationwide. By abandoning the mutuality of estoppel requirement, the court shifted the focus from the identity of the parties to the fairness of the prior litigation for the party being estopped. This greatly expanded the defensive use of issue preclusion, allowing new defendants to prevent plaintiffs from relitigating issues they had already lost. The case promotes judicial economy and prevents plaintiffs from getting a 'second bite at the apple' against a different defendant on the same issue.
Unlock the full brief for Bernhard v. Bank of America National Trust & Savings Association