Cf. Rennie v. Freeway Transport, 294 Or. 319, 323 n. 4, 656 P.2d 919 (1982) (distinguishing “the process by which a final judgment binding on the parties extinguishes all of plaintiff's claims arising from the factual transaction that was at issue, whether or not those claims were actually litigated,” and use of “the term ‘issue preclusion’ to describe the situation where, although the second and subsequent cause of action is not barred by the prior judgment, such judgment is deemed conclusive between the parties with regard to those issues actually litigated and necessarily determined in the prior action”). We reached a conclusion consistent with that understanding in Harrington v. Thomas, 73 Or.App. 648, 655, 700 P.2d 304, rev. den.,300 Or. 163, 707 P.2d 1236 (1985), a case that involved a similarly worded predecessor to ORS 125.480. In Harrington, the appellant had been retained on a contingency-fee basis as counsel for the conservatorship in a proceeding to determine the protected person's interest as an heir to a share of the Klamath Indian Management Trust (KIMT).

In order for a person to appeal under that statute, the person must be "aggrieved" by an act or omission which "affects" his property. Lowthian v. Dept. of Rev., 300 Or. 163, 707 P.2d 1236 (1985). Plaintiff readily concedes that his property is not affected by a misleading tax statement.