Kent v. Kent, 265 Ga. 211 (1) ( 452 S.E.2d 764) (1995) (citations and emphasis omitted).Allen v. King Plow Co., 227 Ga. App. 795, 798 (1) ( 490 S.E.2d 457) (1997) (whole court); Sorrells Constr. Co. v. Chandler Armentrout Roebuck, P. C., 214 Ga. App. 193, 193-194 ( 447 S.E.2d 101) (1994). OCGA § 9-12-40.

Claim preclusion and issue preclusion are often confused (and sometimes even more confusingly are collectively referred to as "res judicata"). Sorrells Const. Co., Inc. v. Chandler Armentrout & Roebuck, P.C. , 214 Ga.App. 193, 447 S.E.2d 101, 102 (1994) ; Taylor v. Sturgell , 553 U.S. at 892, 128 S.Ct. 2161. However, these preclusion doctrines are not interchangeable legal terms.

Like other Georgia courts in the past, the superior court "fail[ed] to clearly and consistently distinguish the two separate doctrines" of res judicata and collateral estoppel. Sorrells Constr. Co. v. Chandler Armentrout Roebuck, 214 Ga. App. 193 ( 447 SE2d 101) (1994). In particular, the superior court confused res judicata with collateral estoppel, also known as estoppel by judgment, by stating that, under both doctrines, "all matters which were actually put in issue or which could have been put in issue are barred."

However, the question of whether the previously litigated issue was or was not essential to the earlier judgment did not seem to be disputed in those cases. The correct rule, followed in some of our appellate decisions, see, e.g., Boozer v. Higdon, supra; Sorrells Constr. Co. v. Chandler Armentrout c., 214 Ga. App. 193 ( 447 S.E.2d 101) (1994), is that followed by the Restatement. See also Restatement, 2d, Judgments, § 27, comment h.

(Citations and punctuation omitted.) Sorrells Constr. Co. v. Chandler Armentrout & Roebuck, PC, 214 Ga.App. 193, 193–194(1), 447 S.E.2d 101 (1994). See also OCGA § 9–12–40 ; Karan, Inc. v. Auto–Owners Ins. Co., 280 Ga. 545, 546, 629 S.E.2d 260 (2006).

(Citations and punctuation omitted.) Sorrells Constr. Co. v. Chandler Armentrout c, P.C., 214 Ga. App. 193, 194 ( 447 SE2d 101) (1994). Defendant Hendrickson was not a named party in the New York suits, but the trial court found that QoS's claims of promissory estoppel, breach of fiduciary duty, and fraud against him were barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel.

Under OCGA § 9-12-40, "[a] judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction shall be conclusive between the same parties and their privies as to all matters put in issue or which under the rules of law might have been put in issue in the cause wherein the judgment was rendered until the judgment is reversed or set aside." See Roth v. Gulf Atlantic Media of Ga., 244 Ga. App. 677, 678-680(1) ( 536 S.E.2d 577) (2000); Sorrells Constr. Co. v. Chandler Armentrout Roebuck, P.C., 214 Ga. App. 193, 193-194 ( 447 S.E.2d 101) (1994)."Res judicata will bar a plaintiff's action if the plaintiff has brought another action based on the same subject matter, the plaintiff had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the other action, the other action resulted in an adjudication on the merits, and the other action was against the same defendant or its privy."

Waldroup v. Greene County Hosp. Auth., 265 Ga. 864, 865 (1) ( 463 S.E.2d 5) (1995).Sorrells Constr. Co. v. Chandler Armentrout Roebuck, P.C., 214 Ga. App. 193 ( 447 S.E.2d 101) (1994). Pursuant to Carter v. Allstate Ins. Co., Ogden claimed in count two that, "having undertaken to repair the original fire damage to [his] home, [Auto-Owners] breached a contractual obligation to perform those repairs (or to see to it that they were performed) in a skillful and workmanlike manner."

" (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Sorrells Constr. Co. v. Chandler Armentrout Roebuck, P.C., 214 Ga. App. 193-194 ( 447 S.E.2d 101) (1994). (Emphasis supplied.)

Bellamy v. Resolution Trust Corp., supra at 631, disposed of most of the issues of the case, including notice under OCGA § 44-14-162 et seq., validity of foreclosure, and fraud in obtaining the deed to secure debt. Res judicata or the law of the case doctrine precludes the relitigation of such issues. See OCGA §§ 9-12-40; 9-11-60(h); Sorrells Constr. Co. v. Chandler Armentrout Roebuck, P.C., 214 Ga. App. 193, 194 ( 447 S.E.2d 101) (1994). Demand for possession under OCGA § 44-7-50 was determined adversely to Bellamy in the February 12, 1998 order.