Issue preclusion "bars 'successive litigation of an issue of fact or law actually litigated and resolved in a valid court determination essential to the prior judgment,' even if the issue recurs in the context of a different claim." Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 892 (2008) (quoting New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742, 748-49 (2001)); Afolabi v. Atl. Mortg. & Inv. Corp., 849 N.E.2d 1170, 1175 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). Together, the "two doctrines protect against the expense and vexation attending multiple lawsuits, conserve judicial resources, and foster reliance on judicial action by minimizing the possibility of inconsistent decisions." Taylor, 553 U.S. at 892 (quoting Montana v. United States, 440 U.S. 147, 153-154 (1979) (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted)).
"The doctrine of res judicata prevents the repetitious litigation of disputes that are essentially the same." Afolabi v. Atlantic Mortg. & Inv. Corp., 849 N.E.2d 1170, 1173 (Ind.Ct.App. 2006) (citation omitted). Res judicata is divided into two branches: claim preclusion and issue preclusion.
(1) the former judgment must have been rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction; (2) the former judgment must have been rendered on the merits; (3) the matter now in issue was, or could have been, determined in the prior action; and (4) the controversy adjudicated in the former action must have been between the parties to the present suit or their privies. Afolabi v. Atl. Mortg. & Inv. Corp. , 849 N.E.2d 1170, 1173 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). Where applicable, claim preclusion is a powerful prohibition against claim splitting; it bars claims that were actually litigated in the prior action and also claims that could have been litigated.
A dismissal with prejudice is similarly conclusive of the rights of the parties and is res judicata as to any questions that might have been litigated. Afolabi v. Atl. Mortg. & Inv. Corp., 849 N.E.2d 1170, 1173 (Ind.Ct.App. 2006).
In order for a claim to be precluded under the doctrine of res judicata, the following four requirements must be satisfied: (1) the former judgment must have been rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction; (2) the former judgment must have been rendered on the merits; (3) the matter now in issue was, or could have been, determined in the prior action; and (4) the controversy adjudicated in the former action must have been between the parties to the present suit or their privies. .... In determining whether the doctrine should apply, it is helpful to 9 inquire whether identical evidence will support the issues involved in both actions. Afolabi v. Atl. Mortg. & Inv. Corp., 849 N.E.2d 1170, 1173 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (citations omitted) (emphasis added). [13] Father contends that the trial court already heard and rejected identical arguments at the hearing on Mother's June 2015 petition to modify custody.
The same cannot be said for a dismissal with prejudice, such as in the case at hand. See Afolabi v. Atl. Mortgage & Inv. Corp., 849 N.E.2d 1170, 1173 (Ind.Ct.App.2006) (“a dismissal with prejudice is conclusive of the rights of the parties and is res judicata as to any questions that might have been litigated”). T.R. 41(B) provides in relevant part as follows: “Unless the court in its order for dismissal otherwise specifies, a dismissal under this subdivision or subdivision (E) of this rule ... operates as an adjudication upon the merits.”
Id.To support its argument that it should be able to enforce the note and mortgage if the Jarvises default in the future even though the complaint was dismissed with prejudice, OneWest relies on Afolabi v. Atlantic Mortgage & Investment Corp., 849 N.E.2d 1170 (Ind.Ct.App.2006). Afolabi involved the dismissal of a foreclosure action with prejudice for failure to prosecute and the filing of another complaint to foreclosure based on subsequent nonpayment.
“The doctrine of res judicata prevents the repetitious litigation of disputes that are essentially the same.” Afolabi v. Atlantic Mortg. & Inv. Corp., 849 N.E.2d 1170, 1173 (Ind.Ct.App.2006) (citing French v. French, 821 N.E.2d 891, 896 (Ind.Ct.App.2005)). “The principle of res judicata is divided into two branches: claim preclusion and issue preclusion, also referred to as collateral estoppel.”
The issue here is the preclusive effect of res judicata on these facts. We recently addressed a similar question in Afolabi v. Atlantic Mortgage & Investment Corp., 849 N.E.2d 1170 (2006). There, the mortgagor failed to make timely payments on his note.
-------- In support of her argument, she relies on Afolabi v. Atlantic Mortgage & Investment Corp., 849 N.E.2d 1170 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). In Afolabi, we observed that "either party may move to dismiss a claim and a dismissal with prejudice constitutes a dismissal on the merits."