Sill v. Sweeney (In re Sweeney), 276 B.R. 186, 189 (6th Cir. BAP 2002) (quoting Hinze v. Robinson (In re Robinson), 242 B.R. 380, 385 (Bankr.N.D.Ohio 1999)).

Bay Area Factors v. Calvert (In re Calvert), 105 F.3d 315, 317 (6th Cir. 1997); Sill v. Sweeney (In re Sweeney), 276 B.R. 186, 189 (B.A.P. 6th Cir. 2002). Consequently, in order for a judgment rendered in an Ohio state court to have preclusive effect in a bankruptcy adversary proceeding, it must be entitled to such effect under Ohio's preclusionary principles.

1) A final judgment on the merits in the previous case after a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue; 2) The issue must have been actually and directly litigated in the prior suit and must have been necessary to the final judgment; 3) The issue in the present suit must have been identical to the issue in the prior suit; 4) The party against whom estoppel is sought was a party or in privity with the party to the prior action.Sill v. Sweeney (In re Sweeney), 276 B.R. 186, 189 (6th Cir. BAP 2002) (citations omitted). While the two doctrines have separate requirements, each embodies the fundamental principle that a “right, question or fact distinctly put in issue and directly determined by a court of competent jurisdiction ... cannot be disputed in a subsequent suit between the same parties or their privies....”

1) [There is a] final judgment on the merits in the previous case after a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue; 2) The issue [was] actually and directly litigated in the prior suit and [was] necessary to the final judgment; 3) The issue in the present suit [is] identical to the issue in the prior suit; [and] 4) The party against whom estoppel is sought was a party or in privity with the party to the prior action. Sill v. Sweeney (In re Sweeney) , 276 B.R. 186, 189 (6th Cir. BAP 2002) (quoting Moffitt , 252 B.R. at 921 ). The party seeking to invoke the doctrine of issue preclusion has the burden of establishing its applicability.

applies when a fact or issue '(1) was actually and directly litigated in the prior action, (2) was passed upon and determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, and (3) when the party against whom [issue preclusion] is asserted was a party in privity with a party to the prior action.'Id. at 704 (quoting Thompson v. Wing, 70 Ohio St. 3d 176, 183 (1994)); accord In re Sweeney, 276 B.R. 186, 192-95 (B.A.P. 6th Cir. 2002) (applying "actually and directly litigated" element of Ohio issue preclusion law); In re Doll, 585 B.R. 446, 456-58 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 2018) (applying the "actually and directly litigated" element of Ohio preclusion law to a state court default judgment in an exception to discharge action under § 523(a)(2)(A) and (a)(6)). Here, the determinative question is whether the issue of fraud and its elements were actually and directly litigated in the prior action.

1) A final judgment on the merits in the previous case after a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue; 2) The issue must have been actually and directly litigated in the prior suit and must have been necessary to the final judgment; 3) The issue in the present suit must have been identical to the issue in the prior suit; 4) The party against whom estoppel is sought was a party or in privity with the party to the prior action.Yust v. Henkel (In re Henkel ), 490 B.R. 759, 771 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 2013) (quoting Sill v. Sweeney (In re Sweeney ), 276 B.R. 186, 189 (6th Cir. BAP 2002) ) . The party invoking the doctrine of issue preclusion has the burden of establishing its application by a preponderance of the evidence. A Packaging Serv. Co. v. Siml (In re Siml ), 261 B.R. 419, 422 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 2001) (citing Grogan , 498 U.S. 279, 111 S.Ct. 654 ).

Grogan v. Garner, 498 U.S. 279, 285, n. 11, 111 S.Ct. 654, 658, 112 L.Ed.2d 755 (1991). “The full faith and credit principles of 28 U.S.C. § 1738 require us to look to state law to determine whether the Ohio courts would give preclusive effect to the judgment in question....” Sill v. Sweeney (In re Sweeney), 276 B.R. 186, 189 (6th Cir. BAP 2002) (citing Markowitz v. Campbell (In re Markowitz), 190 F.3d 455, 461 (6th Cir.1999) ). The Sixth Circuit has stated a preference for the use of the term “issue preclusion” instead of the term “collateral estoppel.”

Under Ohio law, four elements must be met in order to apply the doctrine of issue preclusion: "(1) The party against whom estoppel is sought was a party or in privity with a party to the prior action; (2) There was a final judgment on the merits in the previous case after a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue; (3) The issue must have been admitted or actually tried and decided and must be necessary to the final judgment; and (4) The issue must have been identical to the issue involved in the prior suit." Cashelmara Villas Ltd. P'ship v. DiBenedetto, 87 Ohio App. 3d 809, 814 (1993)(quoting Monahan v. Eagle Picher Indus., Inc., 21 Ohio App.3d 179, 180-81 (1984)); see Sill v. Sweeney (In re Sweeney), 276 B.R. 186, 189 (6th Cir. B.A.P. 2002); cf. State ex rel. Davis v. Pub. Emps. Retirement Bd., 120 Ohio St. 3d 386, 392, 899 N.E.2d 975, 982 (2008)(citing Thompson v. Wing, 70 Ohio St. 3d 176, 183, 637 N.E.2d 917 (1994)(doctrine stated as having three factors, applying "when the fact or issue (1) was actually and directly litigated in the prior action, (2) was passed upon and determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, and (3) when the party against whom collateral estoppel is asserted was a party in privity with a party to the prior action.")). The person asserting issue preclusion carries the burden of pleading and proving its requirements by a preponderance of the evidence.

Under Ohio law there are four elements to the application of issue preclusion: "(1) The party against whom estoppel is sought was a party or in privity with a party to the prior action; (2) There was a final judgment on the merits in the previous case after a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue; (3) The issue must have been admitted or actually tried and decided and must be necessary to the final judgment; and (4) The issue must have been identical to the issue involved in the prior suit." Cashelmara Villas Ltd. P'ship v. DiBenedetto, 87 Ohio App. 3d 809, 814 (1993)(quoting Monahan v. Eagle Picher Indus., Inc., 21 Ohio App.3d 179, 180-81 (1984)); see Sill v. Sweeney (In re Sweeney), 276 B.R. 186, 189 (B.A.P. 6th Cir. 2002); cf. Stale ex rel. Davis v. Pub. Emps. Retirement Bd., 120 Ohio St. 3d 386, 392, 899 N.E.2d 975, 982 (2008)(citing Thompson v. Wing, 70 Ohio St. 3d 176, 183, 637 N.E.2d 917 (1994)(doctrine stated as having three factors, applying "when the fact or issue (1) was actually and directly litigated in the prior action, (2) was passed upon and determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, and (3) when the party against whom collateral estoppel is asserted was a party in privity with a party to the prior action.")). The person asserting issue preclusion carries the burden of pleading and proving its requirements by a preponderance of the evidence.

Under Ohio law, there are four requirements for the application of the doctrine of issue preclusion: (1) a final judgment on the merits after a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue; (2) the issue was actually and directly litigated in the prior action and must have been necessary to the final judgment; (3) the issue in the present suit must have been identical to the issue in the prior suit; and (4) the party against whom estoppel is sought was a party or in privity with the party in the prior action. Sill v. Sweeney (In re Sweeney), 276 B.R. 186, 189 (B.A.P. 6th Cir. 2002) (citing Gonzalez v. Moffitt (In re Moffitt), 252 B.R. 916, 921 (B.A.P. 6th Cir. 2000)); Thompson v. Wing, 70 Ohio St.3d 176, 183 (1994). The party asserting issue preclusion carries the burden of proving its requirements by a preponderance of the evidence.