1 IN TH E COURT OF APPEALS O F THE ST ATE OF NEW MEXICO

2 O pin ionN um

be r: ___ ____ ____ 3 Fi lin g D at e: Jul y

28, 201 6 4 N O. 34, 426 5 THE B AN K OF NE W YO RK AS TR US TEE 6 FOR PO PU LAR

FIN AN CIA L SER

VIC ES 7 MOR TGA GE/P AS S THR OUG H 8 CERTI FICATE SERI ES # 20 06 -D, 9 Pl ai nti ff

-Appe llant, 10 v. 11 JO SEPH A. ROMERO an d MARY 12 ROMERO a /k

/a MARY O. ROMERO 13 a/k /a MA RIARO MER O, 14 D ef

en da nts -Appe lle es . 15 AP PE AL FR OM T HE D ISTRICT C OUR T OF RIO A RRIBA C OUN TY 16 Sa ra h M . S in gle to n, D ist ri ctJu dg e 17 Jo hn so n Law Fi rm , LC 18 T hom as L

. Joh nson 19 Alb uq ue rq ue , NM 20 Rose L. Brand & Associates, P. C. 21 E ra ina

M. E dw ar ds 22 Alb uq ue rq ue , NM1 Houser & Allison, A PC

2 K er ri L

. A lle nsw orth 3 Alb uq ue rq ue , NM 4 fo r Appe llant 5 Daniel Yohalem 6 San ta Fe, NM 7 Ka therine Murray 8 San ta Fe, NM 9 Santa Fe Ne ighb orhood Law C enter 10 Fred eri ckM. Ro we 11 San ta Fe, NM 12 Josh ua R. Sim

m s, P .C. 1 3 J o s h u aR

. S i mms 14 Alb uq ue rq ue , NM 15 for Appellees1 OPIN ION

2 SU TIN, Judge. 3 { 1} T his is the se co nd t im e thi s c as e ha s be enappe al ed to thi s C ourt. T he f

ir st 4 appeal focused on whether the Bank of N ewYork a s Tr ustee for Popular Financial 5 Se rv ic es Mor

tga ge /P as s T hr ough Ce rt if ic at e Se ri es #200 6- D ( the Bank) ha d st an din g 6 to b ri ng i ts f

or ec los ur e ac tio n ag ai nst Jos ep h an d Mary Ro m er o ( the Ro m er os)

. T his 7 Cour t ’ s op i ni on a f

f i rm i ng t he di str i c t c ourt ’ s de t e rm i na t i on t ha t t he B a nk had 8 standi ng w as ap pe al ed to the N ew Me xic o Su pr em e Co urt. O ur

S upr em e Co urt he ld 9 tha t the Bank d id n ot h av e standi ng a t the ti m e the c om pla int was fil ed an d thus 10 re ve rs ed

thi s C ourt and the dis tr ic t c ourt and “ re m an d[ ed ] to the dis tr ic t c ourt w ith 11 in st ru ction s to va ca te its fo re cl osur e j udgm en t an d to dis m iss the Bank[ ’ s]

. . . 12 foreclosure action for lack of standing.” B ank of N. Y. v . R om er o , 201 4- N MS C- 007, 13 ¶ 1 , 32 0 P .3d 1. 14 { 2} Upon re m an d, the dis tr ic t c ourt va ca te d th e fi na l j udgm en t and d ism iss ed the 15 fo re cl osur e ac tio n w ithpr ej udi ce . I n th is se co nd a ppe al , the Bank c ha lle nge s th e 16 de sig na tio n of the dis tr ic t cour t’ s dism iss al as be ing “ w ithpr ej udi ce , ” al ong w iththe 17 dis tr ic t c ourt’ s r

uli ng tha t the Bank “ is pr ec lud ed fr om ra isi ng in the fu tur e the iss ue 18 tha t i t i s e nti tle d to e nf or ce the Ro m er os’ not e an d f or ec los e on the Ro m er os’ 19 m ortga ge . ” W e re ve rs e an d r em an d w ithins tr uc tio ns.2

1 BACKGRO UND 2 { 3} On June 26, 2006 , the Rom eros executed and delivered to Equity One, Inc. an 3 ad j ust ab le r at e not e (t

he N ote ) in the pr inc ipa l su m of $22 7, 240. A ft er

the Ro m er os 4 defaulted on the Note, the Bank, on April 1, 2008 , filed a com plaint for foreclosure. 5 Af ter a bench trial, the dist rict cou rt entered finding s of fact and conclusio ns of law 6 in favor of the Bank. On S eptem ber 1, 2 0 0 9 , t h e d i s trict court entere d its final 7 j udgm e n t a n d o r d e r f

o r f o r e c l o s u r e s a l e . T h e R o m e r o s ap p e a l e d t h e j u d g m e nt a nd 8 or de r. T his Co urt i ssu ed a n op ini on a ff

irm ing the dis tr ic t c ourt. Ba n k o f N. Y. v. 9 R om er o , 20 11 -NMCA- 11 0, 15 0 N.M. 76 9, 2 66 P.3d 63 8, rev’d by 2014 -N MS C- 007. 10 { 4} T he Ro m er os p et iti one d f or aw ri t of ce rt ior ar i, our

S upr em e Co urt gr an te d th e 11 pe tit ion , a nd the Co urt he ld tha t the Bank “ did not e sta bli sh i ts l aw fu l sta ndi ng i n th is 12 case to file a

hom e m ortgage foreclosure a ction.” R om er o , 201 4- N MS C- 007, ¶ 1. A nd 13 the Court rem anded to the dis trict court “ with instruction s to vacate its fore cl o s ure 14 j udgm ent and to dis m iss the Bank[’ s]

. . . foreclosure action for lack of standing.” Id

. 15 { 5} O n r em an d, the Ro m er os f ile d am oti on t o va ca te the f ina l jud gm ent and f

or 16 other relief. The dist rict cou rt granted the Rom eros’ m otion , vac ated the forec losure 17 sa le , a nd o rd er ed

the Bank t o “ pa y al l prop er ty ta xe s due o n th e pr ope rty [, ] ” “ re m ove 18

. . . li en s, en cu m

br an ce s[ , ] or

c ha rg es ” on the pr ope rty , “ pr om ptl y iss ue aqui t c la im 19 de ed c on ve y in g the pr ope rty

tha t w as the sub

j ec t of thi s f or ec los ur e ac tio n ba ck

to3

1 [the Ro m er os, ] ” an d re pa y an y re nta l f ee s or m oni es pa id t o th e Bank o r the ir c ouns el

. 2 Ther eafte r, the Rom eros filed a m otion t o d i s m iss the foreclosure w ith prejudice, 3 arguing that th e Suprem e Court’ s opin ion supported dis m issal with prej udice and that 4 “ both res j udicata and the statute of lim itations bar any subs equent a ttem pts to collect 5 on the acceler ated Rom ero n o te and accom pany ing m ortgage.” The district court 6 granted the m otion and dism issed the foreclosure w ith prejudice. 7 { 6} In its or de r gr an tin g the m oti on to dism iss an d dism iss ing the f or ec los ur e w ith 8 pr e j u d i c e , t h e d i s t r i c t c o u rt s t a t e d , “ i t i s t h e o p i n i o n o f t h e [ c ] o u rt t h a t b y r e as on o f 9 is sue pr ec lus ion

. . . [ the ] Bank .

. . is pr ec lud ed f ro m r ai sin g inthe f

utu re the iss ue 10 tha t i t i s e nti tle d to e nf or ce the Ro m er os’ not e an d f or ec los e on the Ro m er os’ 11 m ortga ge . ” (E m

pha sis a dde d. ) T he c ourt the n or de re d t ha t “ the [ c] om pla int f or 12 [f ] or ec los ur e is d ism iss ed w ith p reju dice an d th e Bank .

. . c an not r ef ile ac om pla int 13 to en fo rce t he Ro m ero s’ no te an d fo recl os e o n t he Ro m ero s’ m or tg ag e.” 14 { 7} On appeal, the Bank argues that t h e dism issal with prej udice and the dist rict 15 court’ s statem ent that the Bank “ is precluded from raising in the future th e issue that 16 it is entitled to enforce the Rom eros’ note and foreclose on the Rom eros’ m ortgage” 17 we re in er

ror. 18 { 8} A lth oughthe dis tr ic t c ourt r ef er re d to “ iss ue precl usi on” a s th e ba sis f or it s 19 dis m iss al w ithpr ej udi ce , w e ad dr es s th e el em en ts and m er its of both is sue a nd c la im4

1 pr ec lus ionbe ca

use ( 1) the dis tr ic t c ourt ap pe ar s to ha ve m er ge d the doc tr ine s in i ts 2 order w hen it dism issed the foreclosure claim w i t h p r e j u d i c e du e t o t h e S up r e me 3 Co urt’ s dec isi on o n th e standi ng iss ue , and (2) the Rom eros argued in district court 4 an d no w a rg ue on a

ppe al tha t c la im

pr ec lus ionm ay

a lso sup po rt di sm is sa l w ith 5 pr ej udi ce . A s w el l, the Bank ar gue s tha t the or de r is n ot s uppo rt ed und er law of the 6 ca se , c la im

pr ec lus ion , iss ue pr ec lus ion , or som e “ hy

br id” be tw ee n th e tw o. 7 DISC US SION 8 I. La w of

t he C ase 9 { 9} “ Whether lawof the case applies, as well as how it applies, are questions o f law 10 subject to de novo review. ” Sta te e x re l. Ki ng v. UU Bar Ranch L td. P ’s hip , 200 9- 11 NMS C-010, ¶ 20, 145 N .M. 769, 205 P.3d 816. “ The doctrine of law of the case has 12 long been recognized i n Ne w Me xico[.] ” U te P ark Sum m er H

om es A ss’ n v . M

ax we ll 13 La nd G rant

Co

. , 197 2- N MS C- 018, ¶ 13, 83 N

. M. 558 , 494 P. 2d 9 71. T he law of the 14 ca se doc tr ine “ is a

m at te r of pr ec ed en t an d po li cy ; i t i s ade te rm ina tio n th at , in the 1 5 int er e s t s o f t h e p a rt i e s a n d j u d i c i a l e c o n o m y , o n c e a p a rt i c u l a r i s s u e i n a ca se is 16 settled it sho uld rem ain settled.” Tr uji llo v . Ci tyofA lbu que rque , 199 8- N MS C- 031, 17 ¶ 40, 125 N. M. 721, 965 P. 2 d 3 05 (internal quot ation m arks and citation om itted). 18 Our Suprem e Court has held that “ a decision by an appeals court on an issue of law 19 m ade in one stage of a lawsuit becom es bind ing on subs equent tr ial courts as we ll as5

1 subs equent appeals courts du ring the course of that litigatio n.” Ki ng , 2009-NMS C2 010, ¶ 21. When there “ is any doub t or am

bigu ity regar ding the [appellate] m andate, 3 the m ea nin g

of the [appellate] opini on go verns.” Id

. ¶ 22. 4 { 10} T h e p a rt i e s d i s a g r e e a s t o w h e t h e r l a w o f t h e c a s e b a s e do n t h e S up r e me 5 Co urt’ s op ini on i n R om ero , 2 0 1 4

- N M S C

- 0 0 7 , d i c t at e s a d i sm iss al w ithpr ej udi ce . T he 6 Ro m er os arg ue tha t the S upr em e Co urt’ s op ini on “ cl earl y de m onstra te s th at

the 7 Suprem e Court intended that the foreclosure be dism issed with prej udice .” They 8 argue that the Sup rem e Cou rt’ s statem ents regarding m ootn ess of the claim and future 9 fo re cl osur e at te m

pts und er the H om e L oan P ro te ct ionA ct ( H L PA ), N MS A 197 8, 10 §§ 58 -21A-1 to -14 (2003, as am ended through 2009 ), by whichever

“ instit ution m ay 11 be able to es ta

bli sh standi ng to fo re cl ose on the Ro m er o ho m e” c le ar ly sho w tha t the 12 Supr em e Co ur t m ean t t o p recl ud e th e B a n k f r o m b rin gi ng fut ur e act io ns . R om er o , 13 2014 -N M SC -007, ¶ 39. Conversely , the B ank argues that the Suprem e Court 14 ac know le dge d it s in ab ili ty to re ac h th e m er its of

the c as e an d thus anti ci pa te d th at a 15 fu tu re ac ti on m ay

be fil edb y any i n s ti tu ti on , in cl ud in g t he Ban k. Se e id. ¶ ¶ 15, 39. 16 A cc or din g to the Bank, be ca use law of

the c as e on ly ap pl ie s to de ci sio ns o n th e 17 m er its , it

sho uld not ap ply , an d a dis m iss al w ithpr ej udi ce is unsu ppor te d. T he Bank 18 poi nts out

tha t the Su

pr em e Co urt w as sil en t onw he the r the dis m iss al sho uld be w ith 1 9 o r w i t h o u tp r e

j u d i c e , b u ta r g u e s t h a tt h e r e f e r e n c e t o f

u tu r e a t t e m

p t s s h o u l dbe6

1 interpreted to m ean that dism issal sho uld be without prej udice. T he Bank also argues 2 tha t “ ch an ge d ci rc um stanc es ” of fa ct or law ha ve unde rm ine d the law of the ca se to 3 suc h an e xte nt tha t di sm iss ing the c as e w ithpr ej udi ce w oul d be unj ust

. 4 { 11} W e ar e not pe r s u a d e dt h a tt h e r e i s c l e a r l a w o f t h e c a s e t h a td i c t a t e s t h a tt he 5 R om er o Co urt i nte nde d, one w ay or the oth er , tha t the dis m iss al be w ithor w ith out 6 pr ej udi ce . T he S upr em e Co urt e xpr es sed nothi ng f ro m w hic h any

r ea sona ble 7 inf er en ce c anbe dr aw n to supp ort eithe r pa rty ’ s inte rp re ta tio n of the Co urt’ s in te nt. 8 Se e id. ¶

1 ( “ W e . . . re m an d to the dis tr ic t c ourt w ithins tr uc tio ns t o . . . dis m iss the 9 Bank[’ s]

. . . forec losure action for lack o f s tanding .” ). Due to the R om er o Co u rt ’s 10 sil en ce on the m at te r an d the re sul tin g am big uity , w e ar e una

ble to co m fo rt ab ly

opi ne 11 as to the Su

pr em e Court ’ s inte nt re ga rd ing the dis m iss al , an d w e the re fo re a ddr es s th e 12 pr ec lus ion ar gum en ts m ad e by both sid es . H ow ev er , be fo re doi ng s o, it is im portant 13 to unde rs tand the c onne ct ionbe tw ee n dis m iss al s “ w ith ” or “ w ith out ” pr ej udi ce a nd 14 the p re cl usi on p ri nc ipl es . W e be ginby dis cu ssi ng the “ w ith ” an d “ w ith out ” 15 de si gn at io ns th atacco m pa ny dis m is sa ls an d e xp la in th ei r im pa cton pre cl us io n. 16 II. Dism issal With/With out P reju dice 17 { 12} Claim

and issue preclusion are doctrines that m ay arise when a lawsuit is filed 18 by the sam e plaintiff against the sam e defe ndant after the sam e or sim ilar law suit has 19 pr ev io us ly been di sm is se d. Se e, e . g. , St at e ex rel

. Pete rs on v. Ara mark Co rr . Ser vs .,7

1 LLC , 201 4- NMCA-0 36, ¶ ¶ 1- 2, 9, 321 P

. 3d 1 28 ( co nsi de ri ng the appl ic ab ili ty of 2 cl ai m an d issue pr ec lus ion w he n a pl ai nti ff , se ek ing da m ag es be ca

use the de fe ndant 3 re fu se d to pr ovi de hi m w ithanutri tio na lly

a de qua te ve ge tari andie t, f ir st f ile d a 4 lawsuit for bre ach of duty , fraud, unfair practices, and violatio n of the Ne w Me xico 5 Re lig iou s F re ed om

A ct , a nd the n la ter fil ed a Fr au d A ga ins t T ax pa y er s A ct c la im 6 based on th e sam e or sim ilar fa cts); Kir by v. Gu a r d i a n L if e In s. Co . of

Am. , 201 0- 7 NMS C-014, ¶¶ 5 9-62, 1 48 N. M. 106 , 231 P. 3d 87 (considering whether a dism issal 8 of the pla int if

f’ s f irs t cl aim f or w ro ngf ul d en ia l of

be ne fi ts a ga ins t the de fe ndant 9 pr ec lud ed

the pla int if

f’ s la te r ac tio n a ga ins t the sa m e de fe ndant f or e nf or ce m en t of 10 a w ri t of

garn ish m en t un de r the doc tr ine of c la im pr ec lus ion ). Alt hough bo th 11 doctrines m ay

be im plicated in a si ngle case, we note that a designation of a dism issal 12 as being “ with prej udice” is relevant in a cl ai m pr ec lus ion an al y sis but not in an iss ue 13 pr ecl us io n a na lysis

. Se e P ie lha u v. Sta te F arm M ut. A uto

. I ns. Co

. , 201 3- N MC A -1 12, 14 ¶¶ 10- 11, 314 P

. 3d 6 98 (st at ing tha t “ [a ] dis m iss al w ith pr ej udi ce is an ad j udi ca tio n 15 on the m erits o nly to the extent that when a claim has been dism issed with prej udice, 16 the

. . . el em en t of re s j udi ca ta( a fi na l va lid j udgm en t on t

he m er its ) w ill be presum ed 17

. . . . W e n ote that this rule appli es to preclude claim s (claim preclusion/res judicata) , 18 but not iss ues (i ssu e pr ec lus ion/c oll at er al es top pe l) ” (f ir st om iss ion in or igi na l) ( fi rs t 19 em phasi s, inter

na l qu ota tio n m ar

ks, a nd c ita tio n om itt ed )) ; B ral le y v. Ci tyof8

1 A lbu que rque , 1985-NMC A- 043, ¶¶ 17-18 , 102 N. M. 715 , 699 P. 2d 64 6 (stating th at 2 a dis m iss al w ith out pr ej udi ce is not int en de d to be r es j udi ca taa nd tha t “ [t ] he w or ds 3 ‘ without prejudice’ when used in an order or decr ee genera lly indicate that there has 4 be enno r es olu tio n of the c ontro ve rs y on i ts m er its a nd l eave the iss ue s inli tig at ion 5 open to ano ther suit as if no action had ever been brought”). 6 { 13} Whe n c onsi de ri ng w he the r a subs eque nt ac tio n m ay be pr ec lud ed on the ba sis 7 of claim preclusion, subs equent courts m ay reasonably look to the ty pe of dism issal 8 in th e fi rs t ac ti on , i.e., wi th or wi tho ut prej udice, f

or guidance. A lthou gh a dism issal 9 with prej udice does no t autom atically result in claim preclusion, “ when a c laim has 10 be endis m iss ed

w ithpr ej udi ce , the f

ourth e le m en t of

r es j udi ca ta( a fi na l va lid 11 j udgm en t on t

he m er its ) w ill be pr es um ed so as to ba r a subs eque nt s uit a ga ins t the 12 sam e defe ndant bythe sam e p l ai ntiff based on the sam e transaction.” Ki rby , 201 0- 13 NMSC -0 14 , ¶ 66 (fi rs t em ph as is om it te d)

. B ut see Tu rne r v. F irs t N. M

. B ank , 201 5- 14 NMC A- 068, ¶ 8, 352 P. 3d 661 (concluding that, despite the fact the com plaint was 15 dis m iss ed

w ith out pr ej udi ce , the dis m issal c onst itu te d aj udgm en t “ on the m er its ” 16 be ca use the co m

pla int fa ile d to sta te a ca

use of ac tio n an d w as thu s “ en tit le d to c la im 17 preclusion effect” ). 18 { 14} All in all, althoug h not d eterm inative in every case, the desig n at i o n of a 19 dism iss al a s “ w ith ” or “ w ith out ” pr ej udi ce w ill ge ne ra lly sub stanti al ly

im pa ct the9

1 via bil ity of apla int if

f’ s f utu re , rel at ed cl ai m . A s w ill be e xpl ai ne d la te r in this 2 O pin ion , in thi s c as e, the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s in cl usi on o f the “ w ithpr ej udi ce ” de sig na tio n 3 on the dis m iss al of

the Bank’ s f

or ec los ure cl ai m

a ga ins t the Ro m er os s ugge sts a 4 pr es um pti on tha t any

f utu re f or ec los ur e cl ai m

w oul d be pr ec lud ed

und er c la im 5 pr ec lus ionpr inc ipl es . I n ou r vie w , thi s is pr obl em at ic ins of ar as the dis tr ic t co urt di d 6 not dis m iss the fo re cl osur e cl ai m unde r cl ai m pr ec lus ion pr inc ipl es but ra the r did so 7 un de r is su e p recl us io n, wh ic h was im pr op er. 8 III . C lai m P re cl us ion 9 { 15} Appe lla te co urts in Ne w Me xic o re vie w de novo w he the r el em en ts f or c la im 10 pr ecl us io n h av e be en sat is fie d. Se e Ki rby , 201 0- N MS C- 014, ¶ 61 ( sta tin g th at

the 11 standard of re vie w fo r cl ai m pr ec lus ion is de novo ). T he doc tr ine of c la im pr ec lus ion , 12 or r es j udi ca ta , “ ba rs re -l iti ga tio n of the sa m e cl ai m be tw ee n the sa m e par tie s or the ir 13 privies w hen the first litigatio n resulted in a final j udgm ent on the m erits.” P et er son , 14 2014 -N MCA -0 3 6 , ¶

24 (alteration, inter

nal quot ation m arks, and citation om itted). 15 “ ‘ T he party as se rt ing cl ai m pr ec lus ionm ust sa tis fy the f oll ow ing f

our r equir em en ts: 16 (1) the parties m

ust be the sam e, (2) the ca use of action m

ust be the sam e, (3) there 17 m ust ha ve be en a fi na l dec isi on in the fi rs t suit , an d (4) the f ir st d ec isi on m

ust ha ve 18 been on the m erits.’ ” Tunis v. Country Club Estate s Ho me owners Ass’n , 201 4- 19 N MC A -0 25, ¶

20, 318 P.3d 713 (a lte ra tio n om itt ed ) (quot ing Ki rby , 2010-NMS C-10

1 014, ¶ 61)

. “ T he pu rp os e of

our appl ic at ionof

r es j udi ca tais to p ro te ct

ind ivi dua ls 2 fr om m ult ipl e law sui ts, to pr om ote j udi ci al ec onom y , an d to m ini m iz e the pos sib ili ty 3 of inconsis tent judgm ents.” Moffat v. Branch , 200 2- N MC A -0 67, ¶ 14, 132 N

. M. 412 , 4 49 P

. 3d 6 73; see also Turner , 2 01 5- NMCA -0 68, ¶ 6 ( “ Re s j udi ca ta [, ] i. e. , c la im 5 pr ec lus ion [, ] is de sig ne d to r el ie ve part ie s of the co st a nd v ex at ionof m ult ipl e 6 law sui ts, c onse rv e j udi ci al re sour ce s, pr ev en t i nc onsi ste nt d ec isi ons, a nd e nc our ag e 7 reliance on adjudic at i o n .” (a l t er at i o n , i n t ern al qu o t at i o n m ar k s , a n dci t at ion om itted)). 8 { 16} Inthe pr es en t ca se , t he th ir d a nd f ourth e le m en ts h av e not

be enm et

by the 9 Ro m er o s b ec au s e t h er e h as b ee n n o ad ju d i c a t i o n o n t h e mer i t s o f t h e B an k ’s 10 fo re cl osur e cl ai m

in favor of the Ro m er os, a nd thus cl ai m pr ec lus ion doe s no t a ppl y 11 to p re cl ude the Bank’ s f or ec los ur e cl ai m . T he S upr em e Co urt de te rm ine d th at the 12 Bank lacked standing and determ ined that du e to the lack of standin g the foreclosure 13 cl ai m m us t b e d is m is se d. R om er o , 201 4- N MS C- 007, ¶ 1 ( “ W e re ve rs e the Co urt of 14 Appe al s and d istri ct

c ourt and re m an d to the dis tr ic t c ourt .

. . to dis m iss the Bank[ ’ s] 1 5

. . . f o r e c l o s u r e a c t i o n f

o r l a c k o f s t a n d i n g . ” )

. T h e R o me r o s a r g u e t h a tt h e S up r e me 16 Court’ s determ ination constitu ted an adj udication on the m erits. The Suprem e Court 17 did no t, howe ve r, a dj udi ca te the m er its of the f or ec los ur e cl ai m . A lth oughthe 18 Rom eros argue that “ standin g is an issue that is essential to get to a claim for r elief” 19 an d thus, a s a thr es hol d issue , standi ng ca n ultim at el y pr ec lud e a c la im on the ba sis11

1 of c la im pr ec lus ion , w e se e no su pp ort f or suc h abr oa d a

ppl ic at ionof

c la im 2 pr eclu si on . T he Ro m er os’ a rg um en t c ir cu m ve nts the e le m en ts o f cl ai m pr ec lus ion

. 3 A nd , a l t ho ug h t he app e l l a t e c ourt s of t hi s st a t e have no t y e t e va l ua t ed whether a 4 negative determ ination on sta ndin g in the foreclosure context precludes future 5 fo re cl osur e cl ai m s, oth er c ourts ha ve he ld tha t a

dis m iss al ba se d onla ck

of standi ng 6 is not an adjudication on the m erits of a f oreclosure claim

such that future claim s are 7 pr ecl ud ed

. Se e F

ed er al H om e Lo an M

ort g. Co rp. v . Sc hw art

zw ald , 201 2- O hio -5 017, 8 979 N.E .2d 1 2 1 4, at ¶ 40 (“ The la ck of standing at the com m encem ent of a 9 fo re cl osur e ac tio n r equir es dis m iss al of the co m pla int ; how ev er , tha t dism iss al is not 10 an ad jud ic at io n o n t he m eri ts an d i s t he refo re wi th ou t p reju di ce.”) , ov errul ing on 11 oth er gro unds re co gni

ze d byB ank

of N. Y. M

el lon v . G rund , 201 5- O hio -4 66, 27 12 N

. E

. 3d 5 55; B

A C H om e Lo ans Se rv ic ing

, L. P

. v . D ev oll , 2 0 1 1 -O h i o -6 6 0 7 , 2 0 1 1 WL 13 6740 561, a t ¶

17 ( non- pr ec ed en tia l) (“ [T ] he dis m iss al of an ac tio n bec au se one of the 14 pa rt ie s is not

ar ea l party

in int er es t or

doe s no t have standi ng is not adis m iss al on the 15 m er its fo r pur

pose s of res jud ic at a. ”) ; see also Brown v. M & T B ank , 183 S o. 3d 16 1270 , 1 27 1 ( F l a . D i st

. C t

. App . 2 01 6) ( ho l di ng t ha tt he d i sm i ss a l o f af or e c l os ur e 17 ac tio n f

or la ck of standi ng do es not

ope ra te a s an a dj udi ca tio n onthe m er its , a nd 18 “ [b ] ec au se the re ha s be enno a dj udi ca tio n on the und er ly ing ind eb te dne ss, our12

1 dis m iss al ha s no ef

fe ct on the unde rl y ing dut ie s, ri ght s, or obl iga tio ns of the part ie s” 2 (internal quotation m arks and citation om itted)). 3 { 17} Additionally , our S uprem e Court has positiv ely cited to cases that either 4 (1 ) not e tha t di sm is sa l without pr ej udi ce is the pr ope r re m edy w he n apa rty

f ai ls t o 5 pr o v e st an di ng , or (2 ) ap pr ov e o f al lo wan ce o f su bs eq ue nt laws ui ts

. Se e D eu tsc he 6 B ank Na t’ l T rus t C o. v . J ohnston , 201 6- N MS C- 013, ¶ 23, 369 P

. 3d 1 046 (c iti ng 7 Sc hw art

zw ald, 201 2- O hio -5 017) ; D e u t sc he B ank

Na t’ l T rus t v

. B rum baug

h , 20 12 OK 8 3, ¶ 11, 270 P.3d 151, 154 (recognizing “ the case m ay be dism issed without prej udice 9 an d th e ac tio n m ay

be r e- fi le d” ); McL ean v. JP Morgan Chase Bank Nat’l A ss’n , 79 10 So. 3d 170, 175 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012 ) (stating that if the bank had no s tanding at 11 the ti m e the c om

pla int w as f ile d, “ the tri al c ourt sh oul d di sm iss the ins tant l aw sui t 12 an d [ the bank] m

ust fil e a new c om

pla int ”) ; see also U. S. B ank Nat’l Ass’n v. 13 Ki m bal l , 2011 VT 81, ¶¶ 22-23, 27 A. 3d 1087 (uphold ing a d ism issal with prej udice 14 but spe ci fi ca lly

de te rm ini ng tha t the m er its of f or ec los ur e w er e not lit iga te d and the 15 ba nk “ cannot

be pr ec lud ed

f ro m pur sui ng f

or ec los ur e on the m er its sho uld it be 16 prepared to prove the necessar y elem ents”). 17 { 18} D ur ing or al a rg um en t, thi s C ourt a ske d the Rom er os to “ poi nt .

. . to a sin gle 18 j ur isd ic tio n th at

on p oin t an d de fi nit ive ly

ha s he ld t ha t w he n ale ndi ng i nst itu tio n f ai ls 19 to d em onstra te standi ng in a ca use of ac tio n an d the ca se is the n di sm iss ed be ca use13

1 of that failure .

. . , [the claim is forever precluded] .” In response, the Rom eros stated 2 tha t the O hio S upr em e Co urt, in B ank of A m er ic a, N. A

. v. Ku ch ta , 201 4- O hio -4 275, 3 21 N.E.3d 1 04 0, reconsidera tion denied , 2014 -O hio-525 1, 20 N .E .3d 730, held that 4 “ a det er

m ina tio n of sta ndi ng is a cc or de d r es j udi ca tae ff ec t” in a fo re cl osur e co nte xt. 5 Additionally , the R om eros represe nted to this Court that the following NewMexico 6 ca s es h eld that “ a determ ination of standing is entitled to a preclusive effec t”: 7 Ki m bre ll v. Ki m bre ll , 2014 -N MS C- 027, 331 P

. 3d 9 15; Eastham v . P ub. E m plo ye es ’ 8 R et

. A ss’ n B d. , 1976 -N MS C- 046, 89 N. M. 399, 553 P

. 2d 6 79; San Jua n Agric. W ater 9 Users A ss’n v. K

NME -TV , 201 0- N MC A -0 12, 147 N

. M. 643 , 227 P

. 3d 6 12; Tr uji llo 10 v. A ce qui a de Ch am isa l , 196 8- N MC A -0 15, 79 N

. M. 39, 439 P. 2d 5 57; THI o f N.M. 11 at Las Cruce s , LLC v. N. M. Hum an Servs. De p’t , N o. 31, 588, 201 3 W L 664 0490 , 12 m em . op. ( N

. M. Ct

. App. N ov. 25, 201 3) ( non- pr ec ed en tia l)

. A ft er r ev ie w ing the se 13 cases, we conclude th er e i s n o supp ort for the Rom eros’ proposi tions in their cited 14 cas e la w. 15 { 19} In Ku ch ta , the O hio S upr em e Co urt c onsi de re d th e hom eo w ne rs ’ ab il ity to 16 co lla te ra lly

a tta ck a j udgm en t in a fo re cl osur e ac tio n by as se rt ing la ck of standi ng i n 17 a Ru le 60 (B) m ot io n. Ku ch ta , 201 4- O hio -4 275, ¶ 1; see Ohio Rev. Code Ann. Civ.R. 18 60(B) (2016). T he prim ary holdi ng in th at case wa s that Rule 60(B) cannot be used 1 9 as a subs ti tu t e f

o r at i m e l y ap p e a l , a n d“ t h e d o c t r i n e o f r e s j u d i c a t ab a r s [ t he14

1 ho m eo wne rs ’] att em

pt edco ll at eral att ackag ai ns t t he ju d g men t i n fo recl os ur e.” 2 Ku ch ta , 20 14 -Oh io -4 27 5, ¶¶1, 1 6. Im po rta nt ly, Ku ch ta did not

hol d th at a n a ppe lla te 3 court’ s determ ination of lack of s t an ding would have a prec lusiv e ef fect on future 4 fo re cl osu re att em

pts

. A nd, in fa ct , the O hio S upr em e Co urt di re ct ly a ddr es se d th e 5 que sti on o f w ha t e ff

ec t a lac k of

standi ng d et er

m ina tio n w oul d have on a se co nd 6 fo re cl osur e ac tion an d spec if ic al ly he ld tha t “ [t ] he la ck

of standi ng a t the 7 com m encem ent of a for eclosure action requires di sm issal of t he com plaint; h owever , 8 th atdi sm is sa l i s n ot an ad jud ic at io n o n t he m eri ts an d i s t he refo re wi th ou t p reju di ce.” 9 Sc hw art

zw ald , 201 2- O hio -5 017, ¶ 40. 10 { 20} The N ewMexico cases cited by the Rom eros also do no t supp ort the broad 11 pr opos iti on o ff

er ed by the Ro m er os tha t an a

ppe lla te c ourt’ s r

uli ng a s to standi ng i s 12 entitled to p reclusive eff ect under claim

pre clusion . W ith the exception of Tr uji llo , 13 1968 -N MC A -0 15, none o f the c as es upo n w hic h th e Ro m er os r el y a ddr es se d th e 14 “ w ith ” ve rs us “ w ith out ” pr ej udi ce de sig na tio n of the dis m iss al s ba se d on s tandi ng o r 15 que sti one d th e pr ec lus ive e ff ec t of the di sm is sa ls. T he c ite d c as es f oc use d onthe 16 appropriateness of the dism issals them selves, as opposed to th e designation s. A nd as 17 no te d by th e Ban k i n i ts rep ly brie f, Tr uji llo lik ew ise doe s no t pr ovi de sup port f or the 18 Ro m er os. T he pr im ar

y hol din g in Tr uji llo wa s that, beca use the case w as dism issed 19 due to the inc lus ionof a n im pr ope r pla int if

f, the re w as no d isp osi tio n onthe m er its1 5 D e s p i t e t h e R o m e r o s ’ r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s t h a t t h e s e p o l i c i e s h a v e b e e n us edto 1 16 supp or

tc l a i m a nd i ss ue p r e c l us i on , t he c i t e d c a se s i nd i c a t e t ha tt he e nu m e r ated 17 pol ic ie s su

ppor t cl ai m pr ec lus ion , not issue pr e cl us io n. See Turner , 20 15 -NMCA18 068, ¶ 6; Cordova v. Larsen , 2004 -N MC A -0 87, ¶ 23, 136 N

. M. 87, 94 P

. 3d 8 30; see 19 als o First S

tat e B ank v . M uzi o , 198 3- N MS C- 057, ¶ 9, 100 N

. M. 98, 666 P

. 2d 7 77 20 (rec og ni zi ng cla im

pre cl us io n i n a de fau lt jud gm en t co nt ex t), over ruled on other 21 grou nds by H

unt ing ton Na t’ l B ank

v . Spr oul , 199 3- N MS C- 051, 116 N

. M. 254 , 861 22 P. 2d 9 35; P ie lha u , 201 3- N MC A -1 12, ¶ 8 (id en ti fy ing the pur

pose s of the c la im 23 preclusion do ctrine). 15 1 an d thus r es j udi ca taw as not appl ic ab le

. 196 8- N MC A -0 15, ¶ ¶ 3, 11- 12, 15. T he 2 Tr uji llo Co urt he ld tha t the pr ope r pla int if fs in the tr es pa ss cl ai m

c oul d pr oc ee d w ith 3 th ei r tr es pa ss cla im

sh ou ld th ey

de ci de to pro ceed

. Id

. ¶ 14. Although this Court noted 4 in d ic tatha t the im

pr ope r pla int if

f w as pr ohi bit ed fr om pr oc ee din g w iththe tr es pa ss 5 claim in the future, that holding is of little value to the present case bec ause the Court 6 pr ov id edno ex pl an at io n o r an al y si s ex pl ai ni ng it s h ol di ng . Id

. 7 { 21} In addition to asser t i ng tha t c a se lawsuppo rts precluding any future fore closure 8 attem pts bythe Bank against the Rom eros, the Rom eros also argue that there are 9 str ong publ ic pol ic ie s f av or ing pr ec lus ionin thi s c as e. Sp ec if ic al ly , the Ro m er os s ta te 10 pr ec lus ionr ef

le ct s th e fo llo w ing pol ic ie s th at ( 1) de fe ndants not be su bjec te d to 11 re pe tit ive , ve xa tio us, a nd c ost ly law sui ts; ( 2) j udi ci al r es ources a re c onse rv ed ; 12 (3 ) inc onsi ste nt d ec isi ons on the sa m e iss ue ar e pr ev en te d; and (4 ) pe opl e ar e ab le to 13 re ly on the jud gm en ts o f the c ourt. I n r eg ar d to the pol ic y f av or ing f ina lity , the 1 14 Ro m er os p ose the que sti on o f “ howm an y bit es a t the appl e” sho uld the Bank b e16

1 gi ve n wh en it ha s h ada fu ll an d fa ir o pp o r t u ni ty to l it ig at e st an di ng ? Alt ho ug h we 2 ap pr ec ia te the Ro m er os’ c onc er n th at part ie s w ho h av e ha d an op portun ity to lit iga te 3 shou ld not have infinite proverbial “ bites at the apple ,” we d o not thi nk that 4 dis m iss ing thi s c as e w ith out pr ej udi ce r

uns af oul of our pol ic y f av or ing f ina lity 5 because th ere has been no final decision in favor of the Rom eros as to the forec losure 6 cl ai m , an d, ad dit ion al ly , re ly ing on pol ic y r ea sons und er ly ing c la im pr ec lus ionis not 7 persuasive absent proof of the relevant elem ents of the doctrine. W e decline to aff irm 8 ba se d so le ly

on the pol ic y

not ion s un de rl y ing c la im pr ec lus ion

. 9 { 22} W e re

j ect the Rom eros’ request that we determ ine the district court’ s dism issal 10 w as sup porte d by

c la im pr ec lus ion , a s well a s is sue pr ec lus ion

. A nd w e re j ec t any 11 su ggest iontha t the dis tr ic t c ourt thr oughit s “ w ithpr ej udi ce ” de sig na tio n 12 ap pr opr ia te ly , int en tio na lly , a nd e ff ec tiv el y pr ec lud ed

the Bank f

ro m re- fi lin g th e 13 fo re cl osur e ac tio n unde r the doc tr ine of cl ai m pr ec lus ion

. T he fa ct is tha t nei the r the 14 Su pr em e Co urt no r the dis tr ic t c ourt onr em an d a ddr es se d th e m er it s of the 15 fo re cl osur e cl ai m an d no ba sis ex ist s to supp ort ap pli ca tio n of c la im pr ec lus ionto the 16 dis tr ic t c ourt’ s is sue pr ec lus iondis m iss al

. 17 IV . Iss ue P re cl us ion 18 { 23} Inge ne ra l, “ [w ] e re vie w ade ci sio n by the dis tr ic t cour t t o a ppl y or not appl y 19 the doctrine of collateral e stopp el for an abuse of discretion.” B rann oc k v. L otu s17

1 F und , 201 6- N MC A -0 30, ¶ 7, 367 P

. 3d 8 88. H ow ev er , w he n th e facts ar e not in 2 dispu t e, we “ revi ewde novo th e question o f issue preclusion.” Id ea l v

. B url ing ton 3 R es . O il & G as C

o. , 201 0- N MS C- 022, ¶

10, 148 N

. M. 228 , 233 P

. 3d 3 62. “ T he 4 doctrine of issue preclusion prevents a party from re- litigatin g ultim ate fa cts or issues 5 actually

and necessarily

decided in a prior suit.” P et er son , 201 4- N MC A -0 36 , ¶ 34 6 (a lte ra tio n, int er

na l qu ota tio n m ar

ks, a nd c ita tio n om itt ed ). I ssu e pr ec lus ion , a lso 7 know n a s c oll at er al e sto ppe l, bars r e- lit iga tio n if the fo llo w ing fo ur el em en ts are m et : 8 “ (1 ) the party

to be e sto ppe d w as apa rty to the pr ior

pr oc ee din g, ( 2) the c au se of 9 ac tio n inthe c as e pr es en tly be fo re the c ourt i s di ff

er en t f ro m the c au se of ac tio n inthe 10 pr ior a dj udi ca tio n, (3 ) the iss ue w as a ct ua lly li tig at ed in the pr ior

a dj udi ca tio n, a nd 11 (4) the issue wa s necessarily determ ined in th e prior litigation.” Id ea l , 2010-NMS C1 2 0 2 2 , ¶

9 ( i n t e rn a l qu o t a t i o n m a rk s a n dc i t a t i o n o m i t t e d )

. A c c o r d i n g to Cu tler v. 13 Hayes , 818 F. 2d 879, 889 (D

. C. Ci r. 1987 ), “ [p ] ri nc ipl es of co lla te ra l e sto ppe l c le ar ly 14 apply to standin g determ ination s” an d a k ey inqu iry “ is whether the issue presented 15 in the tw o p ro ce ed ing s is sub stanti al ly the sa m e. ” (I nte rn al quo ta tio n m ar ks and 16 fo ot no te cit at io n o m it te d.) 17 { 24} Inthe pr es en t ca se , the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s di sm iss al of the Bank’ s c om

pla int “ w ith 18 prej udice” on the basis of “ issue preclusion ” w as im proper because, as stated ear lier, 1 9 t h e “ w i t h p r e

j u d i c e ” d e s i g n a t i o n g o e s b e y o n di s s u e p r e c l u s i o n a n de f f e c t i v e ly18

1 pr ec lud es the e nti re f

or ecl os ur e cl ai m , not

j ust the standi ng i ssu e ad dr es se d by the 2 Suprem e Court. As indicated in Sec tion III of thi s Op i n i o n, the designation o f a 3 dism issal as being “ with” or “ without” prej udice ty pically com m unicates whether 4 th er e ha s be ena n a dj udi ca tio n onthe m er its a nd w he the r cl ai m pr ec lus ionis 5 im pl ic at ed

. Se e Ki rby , 2010 -N MS C- 014, ¶ 66; Bralley , 198 5- N MC A -0 43, ¶ 18. To 6 our know le dge , a “ w ithpr ej udi ce ” de sig na tio n th at r ef le ct s a dj udi ca tio n onthe m er its 7 o f ac l a i m i s n o tt o b e u s e dt o c o mmu n i c a t e t h a tad i s c r e t e i s s u e , b u tn o tt h e c l a i m, 8 w ith in a

c as e ha s be enli tig at ed , im pli ca tin g is sue pr ec lus ion

. W e ag re e w iththe Bank 9 tha t w he n th e dis tr ic t c ourt di sm iss ed the a ct ionw ith pr ej udi ce , the co urt a ppe ar s to 10 ha ve im

pr ope rl y co m

bin ed or m ixe d cla im an d issue pr ec lus iondoc tr ine s inappl y ing 11 iss ue pr ec lus ionto pr ev en t the Bank’ s f or ec los ur e cl ai m . W e do no t int er pr et the 12 Su pr em e Co urt’ s r

uli ng i n R om er o regar ding the issue of standi ng as pr ec lud ing the 13 Bank from filing a secon d action asserting a forec losure claim , an d w e do not appr ove 14 the appr oa chof

usi ng i ssu e pr ec lus ion to for m the ba sis of

adis m iss al of

ac la im

. T he 15 purpos es and the elem ents of issue and claim preclusion are distinct, and the form er 16 sh ou ld no t be u se d t o c irc umve nt th e req ui rem en ts of t he lat te r. Se e P ie lha u , 201 3- 17 N MC A -1 12, ¶

¶ 10- 11 (“ A dis m iss al w ith pr ej udi ce is ana dj udi ca tio n onthe m er its 18 fo r p u rp o s es of re s judicata.

. . . W e note that this rule applies to preclude cl ai ms 19 ( c l a i m p r e c l u s i o n/

r e s j u d i c at a) , but

not iss ues (i s s u e p re cl u s i o n / co l l at er al estoppel).”)

.19

1 This distinctio n is based on the fact that issue preclusion requires that the issue was 2 ac tua lly

li tig at ed an d ne ce ssari ly de te rm ine d inthe f

ir st s uit , w he re as c la im 3 pr ec lus iondoe s no t so r equir e. ” (a lte ra tio n, int er na l qu ota tio n m ar

ks, a nd c ita tio ns 4 om itted)). 5 { 25} Further, ruling on issue preclusion at this point is prem ature insofar a s there 6 m ay be ad dit ion al fa ct s pr es en te d or w ay s of ev al ua tin g the standi ng is su e in the 7 se co nd c as e tha t r e- fr am e th e is su e. F or it s r uli ng, the dis tr ic t c ourt ne ce ssari ly 8 spe cu la te d th at

dif fe re nt o r ad dit ion al f

ac ts c oul d or

w oul d not be ple ad ed in a se co nd 9 sui t tha t w oul d gi ve r ise to standi ng. Bu t ch an ge s inthe law or f ac ts m ay ult im at el y 10 pla ce int o qu es tio n th e ap pli ca tio n of iss ue pr ec lus ion , a nd the dis tr ic t c ourt sh oul d 11 not ha ve pr ev en te d th e Bank f ro m br ing ing asub se que nt a ct io n ba se d on its 12 as sum pti on tha t the f

ac ts and i ssu es pr es en te d inthe sub se que nt c as e w oul d be 13 su bs ta nt ia ll y

th e sa m e as th e fac ts an d i ss ue s i n t he fir st cas e. Se e B el le t v

. G ry nbe rg , 14 1992 -N MSC- 063, ¶ 14, 114 N .M. 690, 845 P. 2d 784 (stating t h at “ ch an ged 15 ci rc um stanc es m ay

pr ev en t res j udi ca taf

ro m ope ra tin g” ( em

pha sis om itt ed )) ; Sta te 16 v . C o t t o n B e l t

I n s . Co

. , 1 98 1- N MS C- 129, ¶ 5, 97 N

. M. 152 , 637 P

. 2d 8 34 ( “ T he 17 doc tr in e of res j udi ca taw as ne ve r int en de d to ope ra te so a s to pr ev en t a 18 reexam ination of the sam e question b etwe en the sam e parties w here, in the interval 19 be tw ee n th e fi rs t and s ec ond ac tio ns, the fa ct s ha ve m at er ia lly c ha nge d or

ne w f ac ts16 A s no te d e ar lie r in the ba ck gr ound se ct ion , the dis tr ic t c ourt a ppe ar s to ha ve 2 17 ru le d on iss ue pr ec lus ion sua spon te , an d thus the pa rt ie s did not have the opp ortun ity 18 to br ie f iss ue pr ec lus ion

. I f an d w he n ase co nd s uit is fi le d and the part ie s br ie f iss ue 19 pr ec lus ion , w e not e tha t the bur de n of pr ovi ng tha t an iss ue is pr ec lud ed f al ls o n 20 “ [t] he party invo king the doctrine[.] ” La rse n v. F arm ing ton M

un. Sc h. , 20 10 -NMCA21 09 4, ¶ 9 , 14 8 N.M. 9 26 , 24 2 P .3d 49 3. 20 1 ha ve oc cu rred [,] whi ch m ay ha ve alt ered th e le ga l ri gh ts or r el at io ns of t he li ti ga nt s.” 2 (i nte rn al quot at ion m ar ks and ci ta tio n om itt ed )) ; To wn of A tri sc o v. M onoh an , 195 2- 3 NMSC -0 1 1 , ¶ 22, 56 N .M. 70, 240 P.2d 216 (stating that, a s applied to coll atera l 4 es to ppel, a“ subs eque nt m odi fi ca tio n of the sig nif

ic an t f ac ts o r a ch an ge or 5 de ve lop m en t i n th e co ntr oll ing le ga l pr inc ipl es m ay m ak e [a pr ior ] de term in ation 6 obso le te or

e rr one ous, a t l ea st f

or fu tur e pur

pose s” ). T he Bank ha s al le ge d le ga l and 7 fa ct ua l c ha nge s th at

it be lie ve s c anove rc om e pr ec lus iona nd arg ue s th at it sho uld 8 ha ve the op portu nity

to pr ove a ny

m at er ia l c ha nge s inlaw or f ac t i n ase co nd s uit

. 2 9 Ca se law c ite d by

both part ie s c ont em

pla te s c onsi de ri ng the m eri ts of a n is sue 10 pr ecl us io n a rg um en t af te r th e fi li ng of a sec on d s ui t. See Cutler , 8 18 F.2 d at 889 11 (s ta ti ng th atth e rel ev an t i nq ui ry “ is wh et he r th e is su e p res en te d i n t he two 12 pr oc ee din gs i s su

bst an tia lly

the sa m e” (i nte rn al quot at ion m ar ks and f ootnot e ci ta tio n 13 om itted)). Our United States Suprem e Cou rt h as s pecifically noted that “ a court does 14 no t u sua lly ge t to dic ta te to oth er co urts the pr ec lus ion co nse que nc es of it s o wn 15 j udgm ent.” Sm ith v . B ay er Co rp. , 564 U

. S. 299, 307 (2 011) ( int er na l qu ota tio n m ar

ks21

1 an d c ita tio n om itt ed ). U nle ss and u nti l the Bank i s gi ve n af ull opp ortun ity

to ar gue 2 the m er its of

it s po sit ionr eg ar din g is sue pr ec lus io n, w e ar e co nc er ne d th at the 3 ap pl ic at io n o f is su e p recl us io n a t th is po in t wo ul d b e u nf ai r. See A lbuq uerque Police 4 De p’t v. Martinez , 1995 -N MC A -0 88, ¶ 28, 120 N

. M. 408 , 902 P

. 2d 5 63 ( “ [E ] ve n if 5 the e le m en ts o f co lla te ra l e sto ppe l are oth er w ise m et , the distri ct

c ourt m ay

sti ll 6 de te rm ine tha t the ap pli ca tio n of c oll at er al e sto ppe l w oul d be f undam en ta lly

unf ai r 7 and would not furth er t he aim of the doctrine, w hich is to p revent endless re[- 8 ] litigatio n of issues.” (internal quotation m arks and citation om itted)). 9 { 26} Beca

use we hold that the district court’ s order regarding iss ue preclusion was 10 pr em at

ur e, w e do n ot c onsi de r w he the r the standi ng i ssu e in a se co nd ca se w ill or w ill 11 not ult im at el y

be pr ec lud ed

. 12 CON CLU SION 13 { 27} W e rev ers e the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s di sm iss al of the f or ec los ur e ac tio n w ith 14 pr ej udi ce , a nd we al so r ev er se the c ourt’ s r uli ng tha t the Bank “ is p re cl ude d f ro m 15 ra isi ng i n th e fu tur e the iss ue tha t i t i s e nti tle d to e nf or ce the Ro m er os’ not e an d 16 fo re cl osur e on the Ro m er os’ m ortga ge . ” O n r em an d, w e ins tr uc t the dis tr ic t c ourt t o 17 dism iss the com

plaint withou t prej udice.22

1 { 28} IT IS S O ORDERE D.

2

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ 3 JO N A TH A N B. S U TI N , Ju dg e 4 WE CO NCUR:

5

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ 6 M . M ON IC A Z A M OR A , Ju dg e

7

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ 8 J. M IL ES HA N IS EE , Ju dg e